Obstetrics

About half of women with an asymptomatic low-lying placenta in the third trimester and an internal os distance of 11-20 mm can have a vaginal birth after 35 weeks without any higher risk of severe complications than if they had undergone elective cesarean delivery, a new study indicates.

The retrospective analysis of 128,233 births between 2007 and 2012 at six hospitals in France showed that of the 171 women (0.13%) with low-lying placenta, 70 underwent a trial of labor, and 101 had an elective cesarean delivery. The vaginal delivery rate was 50.0% in the group of 38 women with an internal os distance of 11-20 mm, and 18.5% among 27 women with an internal os distance of 1-10 mm.

Similar rates of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) were observed whether the patient opted for a trial of labor or for elective cesarean delivery (22.9% vs. 23.0%), regardless of maternal age, prepregnancy body mass index, nulliparity, and previous cesarean delivery. Rates of severe maternal and neonatal morbidity were 2.9% vs. 2.0%, and 12.9% vs. 9.9%, respectively, both nonsignificantly different, the study showed.

These findings confirm results from an earlier study and could reduce the incidence of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in women with low-lying placenta, said researchers led by Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital Center.

“Our results support a policy of offering a trial of labor to women with low-lying placenta at or after 35 weeks of gestation and a distance of 11-20 mm between the placental edge and the internal os on ultrasonography,” they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Although an internal os distance of 1-10 mm did not increase the incidence of severe PPH or other severe maternal morbidity, 80% of these patients went on to have an emergency cesarean section. For this reason, the high risk of emergency cesarean should be discussed during shared decision-making, the study authors said.

Avoiding unnecessary cesarean deliveries is crucial to limiting the occurrence of low-lying placenta, placenta previa, vasa previa, and placenta accreta spectrum in subsequent pregnancies, Dr. Sentilhes told this news organization. “We hope that our results will help caregivers to objectively advise their patients with low-lying placenta regarding the choice of their mode of delivery.”

“This is further evidence to reassure clinicians that managing such patients with labor is a reasonable approach,” said Aaron B. Caughey, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He was not involved in the study.

Many obstetricians have practiced this for decades, noted Dr. Caughey, associate dean for women’s health research and policy at Oregon Health. “We manage these patients expectantly with a plan for a trial of labor.”

“I am absolutely in agreement,” said Sarah L. Pachtman, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York, who is an independent expert. Dr. Pachtman noted that since she works at a hospital equipped for emergency cesarean deliveries, “I can get a baby out in 5 minutes if necessary.”

Dr. Pachtman’s practice consists of “a very large population of women who strongly desire vaginal delivery.

“It’s a better recovery for them, avoids the risks of abdominal surgery, gives them quicker skin-to-skin contact with their newborn and they can start breastfeeding sooner,” she said in an interview. “And the risk of bleeding is actually lower compared to elective cesarean delivery.”

Deciding on the mode of delivery should be based on patient preference and physician comfort, shared decision-making, and where the patient delivers, Dr. Pachtman said. “If the placental edge is between 1 mm and 10 mm or abutting the internal os, I explain to the patient that there is a risk of bleeding even before labor starts, and they would most likely want to choose an elective cesarean delivery.”

Although low-lying placenta can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, particularly when diagnosed at delivery, universal cervical length screening during routine anatomic ultrasound is identifying the presence of low-lying placenta much earlier in pregnancy.

“We’re identifying it more, following it more, and reporting it more,” Dr. Pachtman said. And in the vast majority of patients, she emphasized, the 28-week follow-up transvaginal ultrasound shows that the low-lying placenta has resolved.

Dr. Sentilhes reported a relationship with Ferring Laboratories. No other study authors disclosed having conflicts of interest. Dr. Caughey and Dr. Pachtman reported having no conflicts of interest.

About half of women with an asymptomatic low-lying placenta in the third trimester and an internal os distance of 11-20 mm can have a vaginal birth after 35 weeks without any higher risk of severe complications than if they had undergone elective cesarean delivery, a new study indicates.

The retrospective analysis of 128,233 births between 2007 and 2012 at six hospitals in France showed that of the 171 women (0.13%) with low-lying placenta, 70 underwent a trial of labor, and 101 had an elective cesarean delivery. The vaginal delivery rate was 50.0% in the group of 38 women with an internal os distance of 11-20 mm, and 18.5% among 27 women with an internal os distance of 1-10 mm.

Similar rates of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) were observed whether the patient opted for a trial of labor or for elective cesarean delivery (22.9% vs. 23.0%), regardless of maternal age, prepregnancy body mass index, nulliparity, and previous cesarean delivery. Rates of severe maternal and neonatal morbidity were 2.9% vs. 2.0%, and 12.9% vs. 9.9%, respectively, both nonsignificantly different, the study showed.

These findings confirm results from an earlier study and could reduce the incidence of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in women with low-lying placenta, said researchers led by Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital Center.

“Our results support a policy of offering a trial of labor to women with low-lying placenta at or after 35 weeks of gestation and a distance of 11-20 mm between the placental edge and the internal os on ultrasonography,” they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Although an internal os distance of 1-10 mm did not increase the incidence of severe PPH or other severe maternal morbidity, 80% of these patients went on to have an emergency cesarean section. For this reason, the high risk of emergency cesarean should be discussed during shared decision-making, the study authors said.

Avoiding unnecessary cesarean deliveries is crucial to limiting the occurrence of low-lying placenta, placenta previa, vasa previa, and placenta accreta spectrum in subsequent pregnancies, Dr. Sentilhes told this news organization. “We hope that our results will help caregivers to objectively advise their patients with low-lying placenta regarding the choice of their mode of delivery.”

“This is further evidence to reassure clinicians that managing such patients with labor is a reasonable approach,” said Aaron B. Caughey, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He was not involved in the study.

Many obstetricians have practiced this for decades, noted Dr. Caughey, associate dean for women’s health research and policy at Oregon Health. “We manage these patients expectantly with a plan for a trial of labor.”

“I am absolutely in agreement,” said Sarah L. Pachtman, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York, who is an independent expert. Dr. Pachtman noted that since she works at a hospital equipped for emergency cesarean deliveries, “I can get a baby out in 5 minutes if necessary.”

Dr. Pachtman’s practice consists of “a very large population of women who strongly desire vaginal delivery.

“It’s a better recovery for them, avoids the risks of abdominal surgery, gives them quicker skin-to-skin contact with their newborn and they can start breastfeeding sooner,” she said in an interview. “And the risk of bleeding is actually lower compared to elective cesarean delivery.”

Deciding on the mode of delivery should be based on patient preference and physician comfort, shared decision-making, and where the patient delivers, Dr. Pachtman said. “If the placental edge is between 1 mm and 10 mm or abutting the internal os, I explain to the patient that there is a risk of bleeding even before labor starts, and they would most likely want to choose an elective cesarean delivery.”

Although low-lying placenta can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, particularly when diagnosed at delivery, universal cervical length screening during routine anatomic ultrasound is identifying the presence of low-lying placenta much earlier in pregnancy.

“We’re identifying it more, following it more, and reporting it more,” Dr. Pachtman said. And in the vast majority of patients, she emphasized, the 28-week follow-up transvaginal ultrasound shows that the low-lying placenta has resolved.

Dr. Sentilhes reported a relationship with Ferring Laboratories. No other study authors disclosed having conflicts of interest. Dr. Caughey and Dr. Pachtman reported having no conflicts of interest.

About half of women with an asymptomatic low-lying placenta in the third trimester and an internal os distance of 11-20 mm can have a vaginal birth after 35 weeks without any higher risk of severe complications than if they had undergone elective cesarean delivery, a new study indicates.

The retrospective analysis of 128,233 births between 2007 and 2012 at six hospitals in France showed that of the 171 women (0.13%) with low-lying placenta, 70 underwent a trial of labor, and 101 had an elective cesarean delivery. The vaginal delivery rate was 50.0% in the group of 38 women with an internal os distance of 11-20 mm, and 18.5% among 27 women with an internal os distance of 1-10 mm.

Similar rates of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) were observed whether the patient opted for a trial of labor or for elective cesarean delivery (22.9% vs. 23.0%), regardless of maternal age, prepregnancy body mass index, nulliparity, and previous cesarean delivery. Rates of severe maternal and neonatal morbidity were 2.9% vs. 2.0%, and 12.9% vs. 9.9%, respectively, both nonsignificantly different, the study showed.

These findings confirm results from an earlier study and could reduce the incidence of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in women with low-lying placenta, said researchers led by Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital Center.

“Our results support a policy of offering a trial of labor to women with low-lying placenta at or after 35 weeks of gestation and a distance of 11-20 mm between the placental edge and the internal os on ultrasonography,” they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Although an internal os distance of 1-10 mm did not increase the incidence of severe PPH or other severe maternal morbidity, 80% of these patients went on to have an emergency cesarean section. For this reason, the high risk of emergency cesarean should be discussed during shared decision-making, the study authors said.

Avoiding unnecessary cesarean deliveries is crucial to limiting the occurrence of low-lying placenta, placenta previa, vasa previa, and placenta accreta spectrum in subsequent pregnancies, Dr. Sentilhes told this news organization. “We hope that our results will help caregivers to objectively advise their patients with low-lying placenta regarding the choice of their mode of delivery.”

“This is further evidence to reassure clinicians that managing such patients with labor is a reasonable approach,” said Aaron B. Caughey, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He was not involved in the study.

Many obstetricians have practiced this for decades, noted Dr. Caughey, associate dean for women’s health research and policy at Oregon Health. “We manage these patients expectantly with a plan for a trial of labor.”

“I am absolutely in agreement,” said Sarah L. Pachtman, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York, who is an independent expert. Dr. Pachtman noted that since she works at a hospital equipped for emergency cesarean deliveries, “I can get a baby out in 5 minutes if necessary.”

Dr. Pachtman’s practice consists of “a very large population of women who strongly desire vaginal delivery.

“It’s a better recovery for them, avoids the risks of abdominal surgery, gives them quicker skin-to-skin contact with their newborn and they can start breastfeeding sooner,” she said in an interview. “And the risk of bleeding is actually lower compared to elective cesarean delivery.”

Deciding on the mode of delivery should be based on patient preference and physician comfort, shared decision-making, and where the patient delivers, Dr. Pachtman said. “If the placental edge is between 1 mm and 10 mm or abutting the internal os, I explain to the patient that there is a risk of bleeding even before labor starts, and they would most likely want to choose an elective cesarean delivery.”

Although low-lying placenta can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, particularly when diagnosed at delivery, universal cervical length screening during routine anatomic ultrasound is identifying the presence of low-lying placenta much earlier in pregnancy.

“We’re identifying it more, following it more, and reporting it more,” Dr. Pachtman said. And in the vast majority of patients, she emphasized, the 28-week follow-up transvaginal ultrasound shows that the low-lying placenta has resolved.

Dr. Sentilhes reported a relationship with Ferring Laboratories. No other study authors disclosed having conflicts of interest. Dr. Caughey and Dr. Pachtman reported having no conflicts of interest.

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) represents the most common inherited bleeding disorder, with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000 people. Type 1 disease, associated with a quantitative reduction in von Willebrand factor (VWF), is the most common type of VWD and accounts for approximately 70% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is autosomal dominant. Type 2 disease, associated with a qualitative defect in VWF, accounts for most of the remaining 30% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal dominant. Type 3 disease, associated with a near absence of VWF, accounts for less than 1% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal recessive.

Bruising and mucocutaneous bleeding (epistaxis, gingival bleeding, and bleeding after dental extraction) are the most common presenting symptoms of VWD. Because VWD substantially increases the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and, to some extent, intrapartum bleeding complications, and postpartum hemorrhage, women experience a disproportionate burden from VWD. Thus, ObGyns are likely to be called on to make treatment recommendations in VWD patients with these concerns.¹

In 2017, the American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia determined that among clinical issues related to VWD, updating guidelines for women with VWD represented the highest priority.² Accordingly, an international group of hematologists/coagulation specialists performed systematic literature reviews to address 3 questions faced by women with VWD and their clinicians:

• What are the most effective treatments for HMB?
• What is the safest approach for women desiring neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of tranexamic acid (TxA) on postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)?³

Evidence on management strategies for HMB in women with VWD

The prevalence of HMB in women with VWD ranges from 50% to 92%. Reports suggest that between 5% and 24% of women presenting with this symptom have VWD.³ However, the prevalence of VWD among women seeking care for HMB relates to referral patterns, with the prevalence of VWD substantially higher in patient populations who are referred to clinicians or centers that focus on care of patients with bleeding disorders.

The systematic review authors³ identified 2 comparative studies that assessed the treatment of HMB in women with VWD. One was a crossover trial that enrolled 116 VWD patients with HMB with a mean age of 36 years.⁴ All participants in this trial chose not to use combination oral contraceptives (COCs) as they had not experienced good results with prior COC use. Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal desmopressin (DDAVP; a synthetic analog of the antidiuretic agent vasopressin, which stimulates the release of VWF from endothelial cells) or oral TxA therapy for 2 menstrual cycles. Participants then crossed over to the other drug for 2 additional cycles. Although both agents significantly reduced estimated menstrual blood loss, TxA was more effective in decreasing bleeding than intranasal DDAVP.⁴

In a retrospective cohort study, investigators compared COC use with intranasal DDAVP in 36 adolescents who had VWD and HMB.⁵ Participant follow-up ranged from 6 months to 4 years. The estimated efficacy of COCs and intranasal DDAVP was 86% and 77%, respectively, a difference that did not achieve statistical significance. Some of the adolescents who used intranasal DDAVP reported severe headaches and flushing.⁵

In addition, the systematic review authors³ identified 5 case series that described the use of the levonorgestrel (52 mg)-releasing intrauterine device (LNG 52 IUD) in women with VWD and HMB; 4 of these addressed the efficacy of progestin-releasing IUDs in reducing HMB in this patient population.^6-9 Using different approaches to define HMB, the authors of these reports followed between 7 and 26 patients with bleeding disorders (most with confirmed VWD) and HMB for variable amounts of time after placement of an LNG 52 IUD. Many of the women described in these case series had tried other HMB treatments, including COCs, without success. Although these 4 reports assessed different outcomes, all reported that placement of the LNG 52 IUD substantially reduced menstrual blood loss, often resulting in amenorrhea. Several of these reports also noted important improvements in quality of life following LNG 52 IUD placement. One case series reported LNG 52 IUD placement in 13 adolescents with VWD and HMB. The mean time to achieve amenorrhea or occasional spotting was 94 days.⁶

The fifth report, which followed 20 women (median age, 31 years) with HMB associated with VWD or other bleeding disorders who underwent LNG 52 IUD placement, aimed to describe IUD expulsions and malpositioned IUDs in this population. In this small group of patients, 3 IUD expulsions and 2 malpositioned IUDs were observed. Furthermore, an additional 5 women had their device removed prematurely due to patient dissatisfaction. Accordingly, the IUD continuation rate in this case series was only 50%.¹⁰

Evidence on management of pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period

Heavy menstrual bleeding is not the only challenge for women with VWD. While pregnancy is accompanied by higher levels of VWF, potentially offsetting the risk of bleeding at the time of delivery, the levels do not achieve the same magnitude as they would in unaffected women.¹¹ Women are at an increased risk of primary PPH^12,13 and, importantly, since VWF levels fall exponentially after delivery when women are still experiencing lochia,¹¹ they are at increased risk of secondary or delayed PPH.

Two questions arise frequently in the care of women with VWD at the time of delivery and during the postpartum period:

• What is the safest approach for women who desire neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of TxA on PPH?

The second systematic review the authors performed³ focused on VWF levels in women receiving neuraxial anesthesia during labor. After screening 27 studies, the authors included 5 case series, which did not describe outcomes based on VWF levels but rather described the outcomes of women with VWF levels of greater than 0.50 IU/mL (> 50% of normal compared with a normal standard).

Meta-analysis showed that the proportion of anesthesia complications was 6%, which sounds high, but the range of complications was what would be expected in any population (hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate anesthesia, and bloody tap with no further complications). No spinal, subdural, or epidural hematomas were noted.³ Such hematomas are an extremely rare complication of neuraxial anesthesia, occurring in only 1 in 200,000 or 1 in 250,000 obstetric patients^14,15; accordingly, an increase in the rate of hematomas among women with VWD could go undetected. The absence of hematomas among women with VWD as reported in the systematic review does not mean there is not an increase in the rate of hematomas in women with VWD. The relative risk is unknown and caution would be advised.

The third systematic review that the authors performed³ was on TxA treatment in the postpartum period. After screening 41 studies, the authors included 2 retrospective cohort studies.^16,17 The majority of the participants had VWD. With very-low-certainty evidence, the authors found that TxA reduces the risk of:

• severe primary PPH (risk ratio [RR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–2.59)
• primary PPH (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04–1.75)
• secondary PPH (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.02–0.91—does not cross 1.0).

Note that the 95% confidence intervals for severe as well as primary PPH crossed 1.0 and therefore these reductions in risk did not achieve statistical significance. Additionally, there was very-low-certainty evidence on the effect of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematomas, blood loss, and thrombotic complications.³

Continue to: Our recommendations for HMB management...

When first evaluating any woman with HMB, it is important to check a blood count and ferritin level, if not already done. If there is any suggestion of iron deficiency (with or without anemia), we recommend oral iron supplementation. This is best accomplished with slow-release iron supplement formulations (or less expensive generic or house brands that contain less than 65 mg of elemental iron per tablet) taken every other day. Such preparations may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects than other oral iron formulations.¹⁸ Although it may appear counterintuitive, oral iron is better absorbed (and also may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects) when taken every other day.¹⁹

Initial management of HMB, whether or not a bleeding disorder is present, often consists or oral hormonal management. If no contraindications are present, we recommend initiation of a COC with a short hormone-free interval (for example, a 24/4 formulation). If contraindications to contraceptive doses of estrogen are present, continuous use of norethindrone acetate 5-mg tablets or off-label use of combination tablets with 5 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 1 mg of norethindrone acetate (a formulation approved for the treatment of menopausal symptoms) is appropriate.²⁰

Once a patient is established on oral hormonal management, placement of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD should be considered. Given that expulsion rates may be higher in women with HMB, if feasible, consider using abdominal ultrasound guidance for IUD placement.

For women with VWD who fail first-line therapy (hormonal management) or are trying to become pregnant, TxA (two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can reduce HMB.^20,21

Our recommendations for management of pregnancy and delivery

The second and third systematic reviews discussed above provide very limited guidance on comprehensive management. The care of the pregnant patient with VWD starts with assessment of VWF levels and making an accurate diagnosis. This usually requires the input of a hematologist or other expert in hemostasis. If no recent VWF levels are available, the ObGyn can obtain a von Willebrand panel that includes VWF antigen, VWF activity (most commonly ristocetin cofactor), and factor VIII.

Levels should be reassessed around 36 weeks’ gestation in anticipation of delivery. VWF levels increase during pregnancy; accordingly, in mild, type 1 VWD, half the time treatment is not necessary.¹¹ If VWF activity is less than 50 IU/dL (less than 50% of normal) at 36 weeks’ gestation, the patient should receive VWF concentrate (dosed in VWF units). This requires consultation with hematology and specialized pharmacy support.

For these reasons, the patient with a VWF level less than 50% should be delivered in a referral center with the necessary resources. Anesthesia should be aware of the patient. Unless they have sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, neuraxial anesthesia should not be offered to pregnant women with VWD.

Due to the quantity of fluids administered during labor or at the time of delivery and the coexistent administration of oxytocin, desmopressin (synthetic vasopressin) should not be used without monitoring sodium levels, should not be dosed more than once, or should be avoided altogether due to the risk of water intoxication.

If the patient has sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, she would be a candidate to deliver in her local hospital and receive neuraxial anesthesia.

Based on the best data we have for women with VWD, a patient with a VWF greater than 50 IU/dL is no more likely to experience PPH than other women.¹¹ Intravenous TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of immediate postpartum bleeding per protocol (1 g after cord clamp and 1 g 30 minutes or more later).²² Oral TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of delayed postpartum bleeding as per HMB. Regardless of the outcome of any testing during pregnancy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided postpartum and the patient should be monitored closely for bleeding.

Neonatal care

As for the fetus/neonate, the parents should be aware that the infant has a 50% chance of inheriting VWD. If the baby’s father has no history of bleeding, it is unlikely that the infant would be any more affected than the patient herself. Nonetheless, cord blood (in one or more light blue top tubes) should be obtained at the time of delivery and sent for a von Willebrand panel. If the infant is male, a circumcision should be postponed until VWD is ruled out. In addition, fetal invasive procedures should be avoided during labor. Fetal scalp electrode placement should be avoided. Operative vaginal delivery also should be avoided. Cesarean delivery would be preferred to operative vaginal delivery, but if operative vaginal delivery is unavoidable, use of forceps is preferred to vacuum extraction. ●

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) represents the most common inherited bleeding disorder, with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000 people. Type 1 disease, associated with a quantitative reduction in von Willebrand factor (VWF), is the most common type of VWD and accounts for approximately 70% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is autosomal dominant. Type 2 disease, associated with a qualitative defect in VWF, accounts for most of the remaining 30% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal dominant. Type 3 disease, associated with a near absence of VWF, accounts for less than 1% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal recessive.

Bruising and mucocutaneous bleeding (epistaxis, gingival bleeding, and bleeding after dental extraction) are the most common presenting symptoms of VWD. Because VWD substantially increases the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and, to some extent, intrapartum bleeding complications, and postpartum hemorrhage, women experience a disproportionate burden from VWD. Thus, ObGyns are likely to be called on to make treatment recommendations in VWD patients with these concerns.¹

In 2017, the American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia determined that among clinical issues related to VWD, updating guidelines for women with VWD represented the highest priority.² Accordingly, an international group of hematologists/coagulation specialists performed systematic literature reviews to address 3 questions faced by women with VWD and their clinicians:

• What are the most effective treatments for HMB?
• What is the safest approach for women desiring neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of tranexamic acid (TxA) on postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)?³

Evidence on management strategies for HMB in women with VWD

The prevalence of HMB in women with VWD ranges from 50% to 92%. Reports suggest that between 5% and 24% of women presenting with this symptom have VWD.³ However, the prevalence of VWD among women seeking care for HMB relates to referral patterns, with the prevalence of VWD substantially higher in patient populations who are referred to clinicians or centers that focus on care of patients with bleeding disorders.

The systematic review authors³ identified 2 comparative studies that assessed the treatment of HMB in women with VWD. One was a crossover trial that enrolled 116 VWD patients with HMB with a mean age of 36 years.⁴ All participants in this trial chose not to use combination oral contraceptives (COCs) as they had not experienced good results with prior COC use. Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal desmopressin (DDAVP; a synthetic analog of the antidiuretic agent vasopressin, which stimulates the release of VWF from endothelial cells) or oral TxA therapy for 2 menstrual cycles. Participants then crossed over to the other drug for 2 additional cycles. Although both agents significantly reduced estimated menstrual blood loss, TxA was more effective in decreasing bleeding than intranasal DDAVP.⁴

In a retrospective cohort study, investigators compared COC use with intranasal DDAVP in 36 adolescents who had VWD and HMB.⁵ Participant follow-up ranged from 6 months to 4 years. The estimated efficacy of COCs and intranasal DDAVP was 86% and 77%, respectively, a difference that did not achieve statistical significance. Some of the adolescents who used intranasal DDAVP reported severe headaches and flushing.⁵

In addition, the systematic review authors³ identified 5 case series that described the use of the levonorgestrel (52 mg)-releasing intrauterine device (LNG 52 IUD) in women with VWD and HMB; 4 of these addressed the efficacy of progestin-releasing IUDs in reducing HMB in this patient population.^6-9 Using different approaches to define HMB, the authors of these reports followed between 7 and 26 patients with bleeding disorders (most with confirmed VWD) and HMB for variable amounts of time after placement of an LNG 52 IUD. Many of the women described in these case series had tried other HMB treatments, including COCs, without success. Although these 4 reports assessed different outcomes, all reported that placement of the LNG 52 IUD substantially reduced menstrual blood loss, often resulting in amenorrhea. Several of these reports also noted important improvements in quality of life following LNG 52 IUD placement. One case series reported LNG 52 IUD placement in 13 adolescents with VWD and HMB. The mean time to achieve amenorrhea or occasional spotting was 94 days.⁶

The fifth report, which followed 20 women (median age, 31 years) with HMB associated with VWD or other bleeding disorders who underwent LNG 52 IUD placement, aimed to describe IUD expulsions and malpositioned IUDs in this population. In this small group of patients, 3 IUD expulsions and 2 malpositioned IUDs were observed. Furthermore, an additional 5 women had their device removed prematurely due to patient dissatisfaction. Accordingly, the IUD continuation rate in this case series was only 50%.¹⁰

Evidence on management of pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period

Heavy menstrual bleeding is not the only challenge for women with VWD. While pregnancy is accompanied by higher levels of VWF, potentially offsetting the risk of bleeding at the time of delivery, the levels do not achieve the same magnitude as they would in unaffected women.¹¹ Women are at an increased risk of primary PPH^12,13 and, importantly, since VWF levels fall exponentially after delivery when women are still experiencing lochia,¹¹ they are at increased risk of secondary or delayed PPH.

Two questions arise frequently in the care of women with VWD at the time of delivery and during the postpartum period:

• What is the safest approach for women who desire neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of TxA on PPH?

The second systematic review the authors performed³ focused on VWF levels in women receiving neuraxial anesthesia during labor. After screening 27 studies, the authors included 5 case series, which did not describe outcomes based on VWF levels but rather described the outcomes of women with VWF levels of greater than 0.50 IU/mL (> 50% of normal compared with a normal standard).

Meta-analysis showed that the proportion of anesthesia complications was 6%, which sounds high, but the range of complications was what would be expected in any population (hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate anesthesia, and bloody tap with no further complications). No spinal, subdural, or epidural hematomas were noted.³ Such hematomas are an extremely rare complication of neuraxial anesthesia, occurring in only 1 in 200,000 or 1 in 250,000 obstetric patients^14,15; accordingly, an increase in the rate of hematomas among women with VWD could go undetected. The absence of hematomas among women with VWD as reported in the systematic review does not mean there is not an increase in the rate of hematomas in women with VWD. The relative risk is unknown and caution would be advised.

The third systematic review that the authors performed³ was on TxA treatment in the postpartum period. After screening 41 studies, the authors included 2 retrospective cohort studies.^16,17 The majority of the participants had VWD. With very-low-certainty evidence, the authors found that TxA reduces the risk of:

• severe primary PPH (risk ratio [RR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–2.59)
• primary PPH (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04–1.75)
• secondary PPH (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.02–0.91—does not cross 1.0).

Note that the 95% confidence intervals for severe as well as primary PPH crossed 1.0 and therefore these reductions in risk did not achieve statistical significance. Additionally, there was very-low-certainty evidence on the effect of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematomas, blood loss, and thrombotic complications.³

Continue to: Our recommendations for HMB management...

When first evaluating any woman with HMB, it is important to check a blood count and ferritin level, if not already done. If there is any suggestion of iron deficiency (with or without anemia), we recommend oral iron supplementation. This is best accomplished with slow-release iron supplement formulations (or less expensive generic or house brands that contain less than 65 mg of elemental iron per tablet) taken every other day. Such preparations may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects than other oral iron formulations.¹⁸ Although it may appear counterintuitive, oral iron is better absorbed (and also may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects) when taken every other day.¹⁹

Initial management of HMB, whether or not a bleeding disorder is present, often consists or oral hormonal management. If no contraindications are present, we recommend initiation of a COC with a short hormone-free interval (for example, a 24/4 formulation). If contraindications to contraceptive doses of estrogen are present, continuous use of norethindrone acetate 5-mg tablets or off-label use of combination tablets with 5 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 1 mg of norethindrone acetate (a formulation approved for the treatment of menopausal symptoms) is appropriate.²⁰

Once a patient is established on oral hormonal management, placement of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD should be considered. Given that expulsion rates may be higher in women with HMB, if feasible, consider using abdominal ultrasound guidance for IUD placement.

For women with VWD who fail first-line therapy (hormonal management) or are trying to become pregnant, TxA (two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can reduce HMB.^20,21

Our recommendations for management of pregnancy and delivery

The second and third systematic reviews discussed above provide very limited guidance on comprehensive management. The care of the pregnant patient with VWD starts with assessment of VWF levels and making an accurate diagnosis. This usually requires the input of a hematologist or other expert in hemostasis. If no recent VWF levels are available, the ObGyn can obtain a von Willebrand panel that includes VWF antigen, VWF activity (most commonly ristocetin cofactor), and factor VIII.

Levels should be reassessed around 36 weeks’ gestation in anticipation of delivery. VWF levels increase during pregnancy; accordingly, in mild, type 1 VWD, half the time treatment is not necessary.¹¹ If VWF activity is less than 50 IU/dL (less than 50% of normal) at 36 weeks’ gestation, the patient should receive VWF concentrate (dosed in VWF units). This requires consultation with hematology and specialized pharmacy support.

For these reasons, the patient with a VWF level less than 50% should be delivered in a referral center with the necessary resources. Anesthesia should be aware of the patient. Unless they have sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, neuraxial anesthesia should not be offered to pregnant women with VWD.

Due to the quantity of fluids administered during labor or at the time of delivery and the coexistent administration of oxytocin, desmopressin (synthetic vasopressin) should not be used without monitoring sodium levels, should not be dosed more than once, or should be avoided altogether due to the risk of water intoxication.

If the patient has sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, she would be a candidate to deliver in her local hospital and receive neuraxial anesthesia.

Based on the best data we have for women with VWD, a patient with a VWF greater than 50 IU/dL is no more likely to experience PPH than other women.¹¹ Intravenous TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of immediate postpartum bleeding per protocol (1 g after cord clamp and 1 g 30 minutes or more later).²² Oral TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of delayed postpartum bleeding as per HMB. Regardless of the outcome of any testing during pregnancy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided postpartum and the patient should be monitored closely for bleeding.

Neonatal care

As for the fetus/neonate, the parents should be aware that the infant has a 50% chance of inheriting VWD. If the baby’s father has no history of bleeding, it is unlikely that the infant would be any more affected than the patient herself. Nonetheless, cord blood (in one or more light blue top tubes) should be obtained at the time of delivery and sent for a von Willebrand panel. If the infant is male, a circumcision should be postponed until VWD is ruled out. In addition, fetal invasive procedures should be avoided during labor. Fetal scalp electrode placement should be avoided. Operative vaginal delivery also should be avoided. Cesarean delivery would be preferred to operative vaginal delivery, but if operative vaginal delivery is unavoidable, use of forceps is preferred to vacuum extraction. ●

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) represents the most common inherited bleeding disorder, with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000 people. Type 1 disease, associated with a quantitative reduction in von Willebrand factor (VWF), is the most common type of VWD and accounts for approximately 70% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is autosomal dominant. Type 2 disease, associated with a qualitative defect in VWF, accounts for most of the remaining 30% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal dominant. Type 3 disease, associated with a near absence of VWF, accounts for less than 1% of VWD patients enrolled in hemophilia treatment centers; transmission is usually autosomal recessive.

Bruising and mucocutaneous bleeding (epistaxis, gingival bleeding, and bleeding after dental extraction) are the most common presenting symptoms of VWD. Because VWD substantially increases the risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and, to some extent, intrapartum bleeding complications, and postpartum hemorrhage, women experience a disproportionate burden from VWD. Thus, ObGyns are likely to be called on to make treatment recommendations in VWD patients with these concerns.¹

In 2017, the American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia determined that among clinical issues related to VWD, updating guidelines for women with VWD represented the highest priority.² Accordingly, an international group of hematologists/coagulation specialists performed systematic literature reviews to address 3 questions faced by women with VWD and their clinicians:

• What are the most effective treatments for HMB?
• What is the safest approach for women desiring neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of tranexamic acid (TxA) on postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)?³

Evidence on management strategies for HMB in women with VWD

The prevalence of HMB in women with VWD ranges from 50% to 92%. Reports suggest that between 5% and 24% of women presenting with this symptom have VWD.³ However, the prevalence of VWD among women seeking care for HMB relates to referral patterns, with the prevalence of VWD substantially higher in patient populations who are referred to clinicians or centers that focus on care of patients with bleeding disorders.

The systematic review authors³ identified 2 comparative studies that assessed the treatment of HMB in women with VWD. One was a crossover trial that enrolled 116 VWD patients with HMB with a mean age of 36 years.⁴ All participants in this trial chose not to use combination oral contraceptives (COCs) as they had not experienced good results with prior COC use. Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal desmopressin (DDAVP; a synthetic analog of the antidiuretic agent vasopressin, which stimulates the release of VWF from endothelial cells) or oral TxA therapy for 2 menstrual cycles. Participants then crossed over to the other drug for 2 additional cycles. Although both agents significantly reduced estimated menstrual blood loss, TxA was more effective in decreasing bleeding than intranasal DDAVP.⁴

In a retrospective cohort study, investigators compared COC use with intranasal DDAVP in 36 adolescents who had VWD and HMB.⁵ Participant follow-up ranged from 6 months to 4 years. The estimated efficacy of COCs and intranasal DDAVP was 86% and 77%, respectively, a difference that did not achieve statistical significance. Some of the adolescents who used intranasal DDAVP reported severe headaches and flushing.⁵

In addition, the systematic review authors³ identified 5 case series that described the use of the levonorgestrel (52 mg)-releasing intrauterine device (LNG 52 IUD) in women with VWD and HMB; 4 of these addressed the efficacy of progestin-releasing IUDs in reducing HMB in this patient population.^6-9 Using different approaches to define HMB, the authors of these reports followed between 7 and 26 patients with bleeding disorders (most with confirmed VWD) and HMB for variable amounts of time after placement of an LNG 52 IUD. Many of the women described in these case series had tried other HMB treatments, including COCs, without success. Although these 4 reports assessed different outcomes, all reported that placement of the LNG 52 IUD substantially reduced menstrual blood loss, often resulting in amenorrhea. Several of these reports also noted important improvements in quality of life following LNG 52 IUD placement. One case series reported LNG 52 IUD placement in 13 adolescents with VWD and HMB. The mean time to achieve amenorrhea or occasional spotting was 94 days.⁶

The fifth report, which followed 20 women (median age, 31 years) with HMB associated with VWD or other bleeding disorders who underwent LNG 52 IUD placement, aimed to describe IUD expulsions and malpositioned IUDs in this population. In this small group of patients, 3 IUD expulsions and 2 malpositioned IUDs were observed. Furthermore, an additional 5 women had their device removed prematurely due to patient dissatisfaction. Accordingly, the IUD continuation rate in this case series was only 50%.¹⁰

Evidence on management of pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period

Heavy menstrual bleeding is not the only challenge for women with VWD. While pregnancy is accompanied by higher levels of VWF, potentially offsetting the risk of bleeding at the time of delivery, the levels do not achieve the same magnitude as they would in unaffected women.¹¹ Women are at an increased risk of primary PPH^12,13 and, importantly, since VWF levels fall exponentially after delivery when women are still experiencing lochia,¹¹ they are at increased risk of secondary or delayed PPH.

Two questions arise frequently in the care of women with VWD at the time of delivery and during the postpartum period:

• What is the safest approach for women who desire neuraxial analgesia for intrapartum pain?
• What is the impact of postpartum administration of TxA on PPH?

The second systematic review the authors performed³ focused on VWF levels in women receiving neuraxial anesthesia during labor. After screening 27 studies, the authors included 5 case series, which did not describe outcomes based on VWF levels but rather described the outcomes of women with VWF levels of greater than 0.50 IU/mL (> 50% of normal compared with a normal standard).

Meta-analysis showed that the proportion of anesthesia complications was 6%, which sounds high, but the range of complications was what would be expected in any population (hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate anesthesia, and bloody tap with no further complications). No spinal, subdural, or epidural hematomas were noted.³ Such hematomas are an extremely rare complication of neuraxial anesthesia, occurring in only 1 in 200,000 or 1 in 250,000 obstetric patients^14,15; accordingly, an increase in the rate of hematomas among women with VWD could go undetected. The absence of hematomas among women with VWD as reported in the systematic review does not mean there is not an increase in the rate of hematomas in women with VWD. The relative risk is unknown and caution would be advised.

The third systematic review that the authors performed³ was on TxA treatment in the postpartum period. After screening 41 studies, the authors included 2 retrospective cohort studies.^16,17 The majority of the participants had VWD. With very-low-certainty evidence, the authors found that TxA reduces the risk of:

• severe primary PPH (risk ratio [RR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–2.59)
• primary PPH (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04–1.75)
• secondary PPH (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.02–0.91—does not cross 1.0).

Note that the 95% confidence intervals for severe as well as primary PPH crossed 1.0 and therefore these reductions in risk did not achieve statistical significance. Additionally, there was very-low-certainty evidence on the effect of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematomas, blood loss, and thrombotic complications.³

Continue to: Our recommendations for HMB management...

When first evaluating any woman with HMB, it is important to check a blood count and ferritin level, if not already done. If there is any suggestion of iron deficiency (with or without anemia), we recommend oral iron supplementation. This is best accomplished with slow-release iron supplement formulations (or less expensive generic or house brands that contain less than 65 mg of elemental iron per tablet) taken every other day. Such preparations may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects than other oral iron formulations.¹⁸ Although it may appear counterintuitive, oral iron is better absorbed (and also may cause fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects) when taken every other day.¹⁹

Initial management of HMB, whether or not a bleeding disorder is present, often consists or oral hormonal management. If no contraindications are present, we recommend initiation of a COC with a short hormone-free interval (for example, a 24/4 formulation). If contraindications to contraceptive doses of estrogen are present, continuous use of norethindrone acetate 5-mg tablets or off-label use of combination tablets with 5 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 1 mg of norethindrone acetate (a formulation approved for the treatment of menopausal symptoms) is appropriate.²⁰

Once a patient is established on oral hormonal management, placement of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD should be considered. Given that expulsion rates may be higher in women with HMB, if feasible, consider using abdominal ultrasound guidance for IUD placement.

For women with VWD who fail first-line therapy (hormonal management) or are trying to become pregnant, TxA (two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can reduce HMB.^20,21

Our recommendations for management of pregnancy and delivery

The second and third systematic reviews discussed above provide very limited guidance on comprehensive management. The care of the pregnant patient with VWD starts with assessment of VWF levels and making an accurate diagnosis. This usually requires the input of a hematologist or other expert in hemostasis. If no recent VWF levels are available, the ObGyn can obtain a von Willebrand panel that includes VWF antigen, VWF activity (most commonly ristocetin cofactor), and factor VIII.

Levels should be reassessed around 36 weeks’ gestation in anticipation of delivery. VWF levels increase during pregnancy; accordingly, in mild, type 1 VWD, half the time treatment is not necessary.¹¹ If VWF activity is less than 50 IU/dL (less than 50% of normal) at 36 weeks’ gestation, the patient should receive VWF concentrate (dosed in VWF units). This requires consultation with hematology and specialized pharmacy support.

For these reasons, the patient with a VWF level less than 50% should be delivered in a referral center with the necessary resources. Anesthesia should be aware of the patient. Unless they have sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, neuraxial anesthesia should not be offered to pregnant women with VWD.

Due to the quantity of fluids administered during labor or at the time of delivery and the coexistent administration of oxytocin, desmopressin (synthetic vasopressin) should not be used without monitoring sodium levels, should not be dosed more than once, or should be avoided altogether due to the risk of water intoxication.

If the patient has sustained VWF and factor VIII levels greater than 50 IU/dL, she would be a candidate to deliver in her local hospital and receive neuraxial anesthesia.

Based on the best data we have for women with VWD, a patient with a VWF greater than 50 IU/dL is no more likely to experience PPH than other women.¹¹ Intravenous TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of immediate postpartum bleeding per protocol (1 g after cord clamp and 1 g 30 minutes or more later).²² Oral TxA can be used for prevention or treatment of delayed postpartum bleeding as per HMB. Regardless of the outcome of any testing during pregnancy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided postpartum and the patient should be monitored closely for bleeding.

Neonatal care

As for the fetus/neonate, the parents should be aware that the infant has a 50% chance of inheriting VWD. If the baby’s father has no history of bleeding, it is unlikely that the infant would be any more affected than the patient herself. Nonetheless, cord blood (in one or more light blue top tubes) should be obtained at the time of delivery and sent for a von Willebrand panel. If the infant is male, a circumcision should be postponed until VWD is ruled out. In addition, fetal invasive procedures should be avoided during labor. Fetal scalp electrode placement should be avoided. Operative vaginal delivery also should be avoided. Cesarean delivery would be preferred to operative vaginal delivery, but if operative vaginal delivery is unavoidable, use of forceps is preferred to vacuum extraction. ●

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a single-stranded enveloped RNA retrovirus that was first described in the 1980s and is known for its severity of systemic immune dysregulation and associated opportunistic infections. It is transmitted through contact with blood or bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted vertically, most often at the time of delivery. Since the advent of antiretroviral therapy, the average life expectancy and natural course of HIV infection has improved notably.¹

In 2019, just over 1 million adults and adolescents in the United States were living with the diagnosis of HIV.² In the same year, the rate of new HIV diagnoses in the United States had stabilized at a rate of 13.2 new cases per 100,000 individuals.² Among this cohort, individuals identifying as females at birth accounted for 19% of the total population living with HIV.² Sexual contact was the most common route of transmission, followed by injection drug use—77% and 20%, respectively.²

It is important to note that the incidence and prevalence of HIV does not reflect the individuals who unknowingly are living with the disease. The disease burden associated with HIV infection and the availability of effective treatment modalities has led to the recommendation that all individuals undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ Early identification of HIV infection is important to optimize the health of all individuals and future generations.

The interplay between high-risk sexual practices and the risk for HIV exposure and unintended pregnancy places the ObGyn at the forefront of HIV prevention and identification. Early diagnosis and standardized treatment with antiretroviral therapies have led to both a dramatic improvement in adult disease burden and a dramatic decrease in perinatal transmission.^4,5 In 2019, perinatal transmission accounted for less than 1% of HIV transmission in the United States.² This is a decrease of greater than 54% from 2014, which, again, emphasizes the role of the ObGyn in HIV management.⁶

Preconception care: Gynecologic screening, diagnosis, and management

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that an individual undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ HIV screening algorithms have changed over the last 20 years to reduce the number of false-positive and/or false-negative results obtained through HIV antibody testing alone.⁷ HIV-1/2 antibody/antigen immunoassay is recommended as the initial screening test. If reactive, this should be followed by an HIV p24-specific antigen test. Reactivity for both the HIV-1/2 immunoassay and the HIV p24-specific antigen test confirms the diagnosis of HIV infection. However, if HIV p24-specific antigen testing is indeterminate or an acute HIV infection is suspected, an HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) should be performed.^7,8

Upon a positive diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team approach is recommended to address the mental, social, and physical care of the patient. Team members should include an adult medicine clinician, an infectious disease clinician, an ObGyn, social services staff, and behavioral health support to achieve the goal of obtaining and maintaining the patient’s optimal health status.

TABLE 1 lists the recommended initial laboratory assessments that should follow a new diagnosis of HIV infection. Based on the laboratory results, the indicated vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, and optimal combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) can be determined.⁹ The vaccinations listed in TABLE 2 should be up to date.^10,11 Additionally, cervical cancer screening with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and treatment should be performed in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ASCCP) guidelines.¹²

Promptly initiating cART is of utmost importance; this decreases the rate of HIV transmission via sexual contact and decreases the rate of perinatal transmission.^5,13 Results of the initial laboratory assessment, hepatitis B status, and desire for pregnancy/contraception should be considered when initiating cART.^3,14,15

It is imperative to discuss sharing the positive diagnostic results with the patient’s partner. The CDC provides guidance for these discussions,¹⁶ which should address the use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if partner screening establishes partner serodiscordance (that is, HIV positivity in one partner and HIV negativity in the other partner). PrEP is a single pill approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that combines tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg daily¹⁷ and has been recommended since 2012.^18-20 PrEP also should be considered in sexually active individuals who have higher-risk behaviors within an area with high HIV prevalence.^18-21 Despite the CDC’s strong recommendations for PrEP use, lack of insurance coverage and high cost are barriers to universal use. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) provides a list of patient and copayment assistance programs that can be found at the NASTAD website: https://nastad.org/prepcost-resources/prep-assitance-programs.

Continue to: Preconception considerations...

Preconception considerations

In individuals with known HIV infection, preconception consultation with an ObGyn or maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist should be recommended prior to conception.²² Preconception recommendations include addressing optimization of maternal medical comorbidities, addressing routine health screening and vaccinations, performing sexually transmitted infection screening, and optimizing HIV disease status.^3,22,23

With the assistance of adult medicine and infectious disease clinicians, a cART regimen that is sufficient to reliably maintain viral suppression (that is, viral load < 50 copies/mL on 2 separate occasions at least 3 months apart) and is safe for use in pregnancy should be established.³ In serodiscordant couples, recommended mechanisms to prevent HIV transmission during conception include sustained viral suppression in the HIV-positive partner, PrEP use in the HIV-negative partner, and timing of unprotected intercourse during peak fertility only.³

Antepartum care

The initial prenatal visit

Women who have no prior screening for HIV or prior negative HIV results should undergo HIV screening at the first prenatal visit.³ Screening should be performed in accordance with the “opt out method.”⁶ Using this method, a woman without a known diagnosis of HIV infection is told that she will undergo HIV screening as a component of routine prenatal care unless she decides that she does not want this test performed.^6,24,25 At the time of screening, all pregnant women should be provided with comprehensive information regarding HIV screening, HIV screening results, and the implications of HIV infection on pregnancy.²⁶

In the pregnant patient with confirmed HIV infection, all preconception considerations should be addressed. If not already in place, referrals to appropriate providers (infectious disease specialist, ObGyn, MFM specialist) and ancillary support staff (social services, behavioral health support) should be arranged. All efforts should be implemented to optimize additional medical comorbidities. TABLE 3 lists additional prenatal testing requirements.²²

First and second trimester

Antiretroviral adherence and barriers to adherence should be addressed at every prenatal visit. If the patient is started on antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy or is switched to an alternative cART regimen, viral load assessment should be performed 2 to 4 weeks after the start or change in cART and then repeated monthly until undetectable levels are achieved.^3,26 If an undetectable viral load cannot be obtained, cART adherence should be thoroughly evaluated, and the patient should be referred to an infectious disease or HIV treatment specialist.²⁶

If the initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable viral load, repeat viral load assessment can be performed every 3 months throughout the pregnancy.³ If initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable HIV viral load and the T-lymphocyte count is greater than 200 cells/mm³, repeat viral load testing can be performed every 6 months to ensure stability.³

Early screening for gestational diabetes should be performed in patients receiving protease inhibitors because these agents may interfere with carbohydrate tolerance.^22,26

Continue to: Third trimester...

Third trimester

Women with negative HIV screening at the initial prenatal evaluation should undergo repeat HIV screening in the third trimester if they are at high risk for HIV exposure.²⁵ Factors that determine high-risk status are listed in TABLE 4.²⁷ Sexually transmitted infection screening should be repeated in the third trimester.²⁶

Repeat assessment of the viral load should be completed between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation or sooner if additional indications for early term or late preterm delivery arise.³ Viral load assessments aid in determining delivery timing and route and the need for zidovudine (ZDV) treatment (FIGURE).

Studies that were performed prior to standardized cART use found higher rates of perinatal transmission associated with vaginal delivery when compared with cesarean delivery (CD).^28-30 However, these studies did not account for measures of viral load within their study populations.^28-30

In more recent studies performed in the era of standardized cART and viral load monitoring, CD does not provide protection from perinatal transmission when the maternal viral load is less than 1,000 copies/mL at the time of delivery.³¹ Similarly, delivery prior to 40 weeks’ gestation does not confer protection from perinatal transmission.³²

Alternatively, if the maternal viral load is 1,000 copies/mL or greater, CD should be considered to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission. A scheduled, elective CD at 38 weeks’ gestation is recommended in those with a maternal viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater and no medical indication for earlier delivery in order to decrease the likelihood of labor onset and/or rupture of membranes prior to delivery.^3,33

Intrapartum care

Rapid antigen testing (with follow-up confirmatory testing as indicated) is recommended in patients presenting to labor and delivery with no prior documentation of HIV status.^3,8,26

Despite a significant decrease in perinatal transmission rates over the last 30 years, a large proportion of perinatal transmission cases are thought to result from intrapartum fetal exposure. While the mechanism of transmission is not known, a correlation between maternal viral load and risk for perinatal transmission has been shown. A maternal viral load of less than 1,000 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission risk of less than 2%.^34,35 A maternal viral load between 50 and 999 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission rate of 1% to 2% compared with less than 1% for a maternal viral load of less than 50 copies/mL or undetectable measures.^5,36,37

These differences in perinatal transmission rates have prompted the recommendation for administration of ZDV for a minimum of 3 hours prior to delivery in mothers with a viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater.^4,38 The recommended ZDV dosing is: a 1-hour intravenous loading dose of 2 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg per hour until delivery.^39,40 Patients who opt for vaginal delivery despite nonsuppressed viral loads (≥1,000 copies/mL) after thorough perinatal counseling should receive ZDV at the start of labor through delivery.³ All patients should be continued on cART throughout their intrapartum and postpartum course.

The duration of membrane rupture and the use of invasive fetal monitoring (that is, fetal scalp electrodes) have been assessed as mechanisms of perinatal transmission. Although they were performed prior to the standardized use of cART, several studies demonstrated that increased perinatal transmission rates were associated with invasive fetal monitoring.^34,41,42 While limited data have refuted this finding in women with suppressed viral loads (< 50 copies/mL), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends avoiding the use of invasive fetal monitoring in labor.²⁶

Pre-cART studies demonstrated increased rates of perinatal transmission with longer durations of membrane rupture prior to delivery.^43,44 More recent studies have reevaluated this association and determined that the increased perinatal transmission rates are more likely associated with higher maternal viral loads at the time of delivery rather than duration of membrane rupture.^45-47 No clear evidence describes when or if CD after the onset of labor or rupture of membranes provides protection from perinatal HIV transmission in pregnant women with HIV receiving no antiretroviral drugs or only ZDV during labor.^43,48 CD can be considered for patients in whom scheduled, pre-labor CD was planned who present in labor or with rupture of membranes prior to scheduled CD.²⁶ These, and additional intrapartum considerations, are listed in TABLE 5.^49,50

Appropriate personal protective equipment should be available and donned for all providers present throughout intrapartum management and at delivery.^23,26 Should any provider injury occur, immediate cleansing of the injury site should be performed, followed by referral to proper workplace supervisors for additional laboratory testing and antiretroviral prophylaxis.

Continue to: Postpartum care...

Postpartum care

Postpartum contraception should be offered and provided in accordance with patient request. Regardless of other birth control methods, strict condom use should be advised. PrEP should be discussed and offered for all partners of serodiscordant couples.

Upon outpatient follow-up, assessment and provision of routine health maintenance should be performed. Any abnormal cervical pathology encountered during prenatal care should be managed in accordance with ASCCP guidelines.¹² Follow-up care should be established with adult medicine, infectious disease, and ObGyn clinicians.²⁶

Neonatal considerations

Neonates born to mothers with positive or unknown HIV status should undergo expedited HIV testing.^51,52 Consultation should be conducted with pediatric or neonatology colleagues to determine the antiretroviral regimen and duration of therapy based on presumed HIV status of the neonate. Ideally, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated within 6 hours of delivery.^3,53

Formula feeding should be implemented as maternal HIV infection is one of the few contraindications to breastfeeding.^54,55 The risk of late breast milk transmission, defined as postnatal transmission that occurs after 1 month of age, may vary based on maternal viral load, but it has been reported as high as 8.9 transmissions per 100 person-years of breastfeeding.⁵⁶

Resources available

Care of the pregnant patient with HIV and the reduction of perinatal transmission both depend on early diagnosis of HIV and effective treatment with cART. Such patients benefit from a team-based care model that includes the ObGyn and/or MFM specialist, infectious disease clinician, pediatrician, and social worker. As guidelines evolve for care of these patients, a reference checklist, such as the examples provided at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine website (smfm.org) or at HIV.gov, provide an outline for:

• management before, during, and after pregnancy
• suggestions for management teams of interest to successfully carry out the checklist requirements
• proposals for measurements of quality performance with the use of checklists in the management of HIV in pregnancy.

In addition, assistance with clinical decision making for patients with HIV in pregnancy can be obtained via telephone consultation with the National Clinician Consultation Center–Perinatal HIV/AIDS (888-448-8765), which is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ●

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a single-stranded enveloped RNA retrovirus that was first described in the 1980s and is known for its severity of systemic immune dysregulation and associated opportunistic infections. It is transmitted through contact with blood or bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted vertically, most often at the time of delivery. Since the advent of antiretroviral therapy, the average life expectancy and natural course of HIV infection has improved notably.¹

In 2019, just over 1 million adults and adolescents in the United States were living with the diagnosis of HIV.² In the same year, the rate of new HIV diagnoses in the United States had stabilized at a rate of 13.2 new cases per 100,000 individuals.² Among this cohort, individuals identifying as females at birth accounted for 19% of the total population living with HIV.² Sexual contact was the most common route of transmission, followed by injection drug use—77% and 20%, respectively.²

It is important to note that the incidence and prevalence of HIV does not reflect the individuals who unknowingly are living with the disease. The disease burden associated with HIV infection and the availability of effective treatment modalities has led to the recommendation that all individuals undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ Early identification of HIV infection is important to optimize the health of all individuals and future generations.

The interplay between high-risk sexual practices and the risk for HIV exposure and unintended pregnancy places the ObGyn at the forefront of HIV prevention and identification. Early diagnosis and standardized treatment with antiretroviral therapies have led to both a dramatic improvement in adult disease burden and a dramatic decrease in perinatal transmission.^4,5 In 2019, perinatal transmission accounted for less than 1% of HIV transmission in the United States.² This is a decrease of greater than 54% from 2014, which, again, emphasizes the role of the ObGyn in HIV management.⁶

Preconception care: Gynecologic screening, diagnosis, and management

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that an individual undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ HIV screening algorithms have changed over the last 20 years to reduce the number of false-positive and/or false-negative results obtained through HIV antibody testing alone.⁷ HIV-1/2 antibody/antigen immunoassay is recommended as the initial screening test. If reactive, this should be followed by an HIV p24-specific antigen test. Reactivity for both the HIV-1/2 immunoassay and the HIV p24-specific antigen test confirms the diagnosis of HIV infection. However, if HIV p24-specific antigen testing is indeterminate or an acute HIV infection is suspected, an HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) should be performed.^7,8

Upon a positive diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team approach is recommended to address the mental, social, and physical care of the patient. Team members should include an adult medicine clinician, an infectious disease clinician, an ObGyn, social services staff, and behavioral health support to achieve the goal of obtaining and maintaining the patient’s optimal health status.

TABLE 1 lists the recommended initial laboratory assessments that should follow a new diagnosis of HIV infection. Based on the laboratory results, the indicated vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, and optimal combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) can be determined.⁹ The vaccinations listed in TABLE 2 should be up to date.^10,11 Additionally, cervical cancer screening with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and treatment should be performed in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ASCCP) guidelines.¹²

Promptly initiating cART is of utmost importance; this decreases the rate of HIV transmission via sexual contact and decreases the rate of perinatal transmission.^5,13 Results of the initial laboratory assessment, hepatitis B status, and desire for pregnancy/contraception should be considered when initiating cART.^3,14,15

It is imperative to discuss sharing the positive diagnostic results with the patient’s partner. The CDC provides guidance for these discussions,¹⁶ which should address the use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if partner screening establishes partner serodiscordance (that is, HIV positivity in one partner and HIV negativity in the other partner). PrEP is a single pill approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that combines tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg daily¹⁷ and has been recommended since 2012.^18-20 PrEP also should be considered in sexually active individuals who have higher-risk behaviors within an area with high HIV prevalence.^18-21 Despite the CDC’s strong recommendations for PrEP use, lack of insurance coverage and high cost are barriers to universal use. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) provides a list of patient and copayment assistance programs that can be found at the NASTAD website: https://nastad.org/prepcost-resources/prep-assitance-programs.

Continue to: Preconception considerations...

Preconception considerations

In individuals with known HIV infection, preconception consultation with an ObGyn or maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist should be recommended prior to conception.²² Preconception recommendations include addressing optimization of maternal medical comorbidities, addressing routine health screening and vaccinations, performing sexually transmitted infection screening, and optimizing HIV disease status.^3,22,23

With the assistance of adult medicine and infectious disease clinicians, a cART regimen that is sufficient to reliably maintain viral suppression (that is, viral load < 50 copies/mL on 2 separate occasions at least 3 months apart) and is safe for use in pregnancy should be established.³ In serodiscordant couples, recommended mechanisms to prevent HIV transmission during conception include sustained viral suppression in the HIV-positive partner, PrEP use in the HIV-negative partner, and timing of unprotected intercourse during peak fertility only.³

Antepartum care

The initial prenatal visit

Women who have no prior screening for HIV or prior negative HIV results should undergo HIV screening at the first prenatal visit.³ Screening should be performed in accordance with the “opt out method.”⁶ Using this method, a woman without a known diagnosis of HIV infection is told that she will undergo HIV screening as a component of routine prenatal care unless she decides that she does not want this test performed.^6,24,25 At the time of screening, all pregnant women should be provided with comprehensive information regarding HIV screening, HIV screening results, and the implications of HIV infection on pregnancy.²⁶

In the pregnant patient with confirmed HIV infection, all preconception considerations should be addressed. If not already in place, referrals to appropriate providers (infectious disease specialist, ObGyn, MFM specialist) and ancillary support staff (social services, behavioral health support) should be arranged. All efforts should be implemented to optimize additional medical comorbidities. TABLE 3 lists additional prenatal testing requirements.²²

First and second trimester

Antiretroviral adherence and barriers to adherence should be addressed at every prenatal visit. If the patient is started on antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy or is switched to an alternative cART regimen, viral load assessment should be performed 2 to 4 weeks after the start or change in cART and then repeated monthly until undetectable levels are achieved.^3,26 If an undetectable viral load cannot be obtained, cART adherence should be thoroughly evaluated, and the patient should be referred to an infectious disease or HIV treatment specialist.²⁶

If the initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable viral load, repeat viral load assessment can be performed every 3 months throughout the pregnancy.³ If initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable HIV viral load and the T-lymphocyte count is greater than 200 cells/mm³, repeat viral load testing can be performed every 6 months to ensure stability.³

Early screening for gestational diabetes should be performed in patients receiving protease inhibitors because these agents may interfere with carbohydrate tolerance.^22,26

Continue to: Third trimester...

Third trimester

Women with negative HIV screening at the initial prenatal evaluation should undergo repeat HIV screening in the third trimester if they are at high risk for HIV exposure.²⁵ Factors that determine high-risk status are listed in TABLE 4.²⁷ Sexually transmitted infection screening should be repeated in the third trimester.²⁶

Repeat assessment of the viral load should be completed between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation or sooner if additional indications for early term or late preterm delivery arise.³ Viral load assessments aid in determining delivery timing and route and the need for zidovudine (ZDV) treatment (FIGURE).

Studies that were performed prior to standardized cART use found higher rates of perinatal transmission associated with vaginal delivery when compared with cesarean delivery (CD).^28-30 However, these studies did not account for measures of viral load within their study populations.^28-30

In more recent studies performed in the era of standardized cART and viral load monitoring, CD does not provide protection from perinatal transmission when the maternal viral load is less than 1,000 copies/mL at the time of delivery.³¹ Similarly, delivery prior to 40 weeks’ gestation does not confer protection from perinatal transmission.³²

Alternatively, if the maternal viral load is 1,000 copies/mL or greater, CD should be considered to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission. A scheduled, elective CD at 38 weeks’ gestation is recommended in those with a maternal viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater and no medical indication for earlier delivery in order to decrease the likelihood of labor onset and/or rupture of membranes prior to delivery.^3,33

Intrapartum care

Rapid antigen testing (with follow-up confirmatory testing as indicated) is recommended in patients presenting to labor and delivery with no prior documentation of HIV status.^3,8,26

Despite a significant decrease in perinatal transmission rates over the last 30 years, a large proportion of perinatal transmission cases are thought to result from intrapartum fetal exposure. While the mechanism of transmission is not known, a correlation between maternal viral load and risk for perinatal transmission has been shown. A maternal viral load of less than 1,000 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission risk of less than 2%.^34,35 A maternal viral load between 50 and 999 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission rate of 1% to 2% compared with less than 1% for a maternal viral load of less than 50 copies/mL or undetectable measures.^5,36,37

These differences in perinatal transmission rates have prompted the recommendation for administration of ZDV for a minimum of 3 hours prior to delivery in mothers with a viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater.^4,38 The recommended ZDV dosing is: a 1-hour intravenous loading dose of 2 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg per hour until delivery.^39,40 Patients who opt for vaginal delivery despite nonsuppressed viral loads (≥1,000 copies/mL) after thorough perinatal counseling should receive ZDV at the start of labor through delivery.³ All patients should be continued on cART throughout their intrapartum and postpartum course.

The duration of membrane rupture and the use of invasive fetal monitoring (that is, fetal scalp electrodes) have been assessed as mechanisms of perinatal transmission. Although they were performed prior to the standardized use of cART, several studies demonstrated that increased perinatal transmission rates were associated with invasive fetal monitoring.^34,41,42 While limited data have refuted this finding in women with suppressed viral loads (< 50 copies/mL), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends avoiding the use of invasive fetal monitoring in labor.²⁶

Pre-cART studies demonstrated increased rates of perinatal transmission with longer durations of membrane rupture prior to delivery.^43,44 More recent studies have reevaluated this association and determined that the increased perinatal transmission rates are more likely associated with higher maternal viral loads at the time of delivery rather than duration of membrane rupture.^45-47 No clear evidence describes when or if CD after the onset of labor or rupture of membranes provides protection from perinatal HIV transmission in pregnant women with HIV receiving no antiretroviral drugs or only ZDV during labor.^43,48 CD can be considered for patients in whom scheduled, pre-labor CD was planned who present in labor or with rupture of membranes prior to scheduled CD.²⁶ These, and additional intrapartum considerations, are listed in TABLE 5.^49,50

Appropriate personal protective equipment should be available and donned for all providers present throughout intrapartum management and at delivery.^23,26 Should any provider injury occur, immediate cleansing of the injury site should be performed, followed by referral to proper workplace supervisors for additional laboratory testing and antiretroviral prophylaxis.

Continue to: Postpartum care...

Postpartum care

Postpartum contraception should be offered and provided in accordance with patient request. Regardless of other birth control methods, strict condom use should be advised. PrEP should be discussed and offered for all partners of serodiscordant couples.

Upon outpatient follow-up, assessment and provision of routine health maintenance should be performed. Any abnormal cervical pathology encountered during prenatal care should be managed in accordance with ASCCP guidelines.¹² Follow-up care should be established with adult medicine, infectious disease, and ObGyn clinicians.²⁶

Neonatal considerations

Neonates born to mothers with positive or unknown HIV status should undergo expedited HIV testing.^51,52 Consultation should be conducted with pediatric or neonatology colleagues to determine the antiretroviral regimen and duration of therapy based on presumed HIV status of the neonate. Ideally, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated within 6 hours of delivery.^3,53

Formula feeding should be implemented as maternal HIV infection is one of the few contraindications to breastfeeding.^54,55 The risk of late breast milk transmission, defined as postnatal transmission that occurs after 1 month of age, may vary based on maternal viral load, but it has been reported as high as 8.9 transmissions per 100 person-years of breastfeeding.⁵⁶

Resources available

Care of the pregnant patient with HIV and the reduction of perinatal transmission both depend on early diagnosis of HIV and effective treatment with cART. Such patients benefit from a team-based care model that includes the ObGyn and/or MFM specialist, infectious disease clinician, pediatrician, and social worker. As guidelines evolve for care of these patients, a reference checklist, such as the examples provided at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine website (smfm.org) or at HIV.gov, provide an outline for:

• management before, during, and after pregnancy
• suggestions for management teams of interest to successfully carry out the checklist requirements
• proposals for measurements of quality performance with the use of checklists in the management of HIV in pregnancy.

In addition, assistance with clinical decision making for patients with HIV in pregnancy can be obtained via telephone consultation with the National Clinician Consultation Center–Perinatal HIV/AIDS (888-448-8765), which is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ●

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a single-stranded enveloped RNA retrovirus that was first described in the 1980s and is known for its severity of systemic immune dysregulation and associated opportunistic infections. It is transmitted through contact with blood or bodily fluids, and it can be transmitted vertically, most often at the time of delivery. Since the advent of antiretroviral therapy, the average life expectancy and natural course of HIV infection has improved notably.¹

In 2019, just over 1 million adults and adolescents in the United States were living with the diagnosis of HIV.² In the same year, the rate of new HIV diagnoses in the United States had stabilized at a rate of 13.2 new cases per 100,000 individuals.² Among this cohort, individuals identifying as females at birth accounted for 19% of the total population living with HIV.² Sexual contact was the most common route of transmission, followed by injection drug use—77% and 20%, respectively.²

It is important to note that the incidence and prevalence of HIV does not reflect the individuals who unknowingly are living with the disease. The disease burden associated with HIV infection and the availability of effective treatment modalities has led to the recommendation that all individuals undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ Early identification of HIV infection is important to optimize the health of all individuals and future generations.

The interplay between high-risk sexual practices and the risk for HIV exposure and unintended pregnancy places the ObGyn at the forefront of HIV prevention and identification. Early diagnosis and standardized treatment with antiretroviral therapies have led to both a dramatic improvement in adult disease burden and a dramatic decrease in perinatal transmission.^4,5 In 2019, perinatal transmission accounted for less than 1% of HIV transmission in the United States.² This is a decrease of greater than 54% from 2014, which, again, emphasizes the role of the ObGyn in HIV management.⁶

Preconception care: Gynecologic screening, diagnosis, and management

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that an individual undergo HIV screening at least once in their lifetime.³ HIV screening algorithms have changed over the last 20 years to reduce the number of false-positive and/or false-negative results obtained through HIV antibody testing alone.⁷ HIV-1/2 antibody/antigen immunoassay is recommended as the initial screening test. If reactive, this should be followed by an HIV p24-specific antigen test. Reactivity for both the HIV-1/2 immunoassay and the HIV p24-specific antigen test confirms the diagnosis of HIV infection. However, if HIV p24-specific antigen testing is indeterminate or an acute HIV infection is suspected, an HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) should be performed.^7,8

Upon a positive diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team approach is recommended to address the mental, social, and physical care of the patient. Team members should include an adult medicine clinician, an infectious disease clinician, an ObGyn, social services staff, and behavioral health support to achieve the goal of obtaining and maintaining the patient’s optimal health status.

TABLE 1 lists the recommended initial laboratory assessments that should follow a new diagnosis of HIV infection. Based on the laboratory results, the indicated vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, and optimal combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) can be determined.⁹ The vaccinations listed in TABLE 2 should be up to date.^10,11 Additionally, cervical cancer screening with cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and treatment should be performed in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ASCCP) guidelines.¹²

Promptly initiating cART is of utmost importance; this decreases the rate of HIV transmission via sexual contact and decreases the rate of perinatal transmission.^5,13 Results of the initial laboratory assessment, hepatitis B status, and desire for pregnancy/contraception should be considered when initiating cART.^3,14,15

It is imperative to discuss sharing the positive diagnostic results with the patient’s partner. The CDC provides guidance for these discussions,¹⁶ which should address the use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if partner screening establishes partner serodiscordance (that is, HIV positivity in one partner and HIV negativity in the other partner). PrEP is a single pill approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that combines tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg daily¹⁷ and has been recommended since 2012.^18-20 PrEP also should be considered in sexually active individuals who have higher-risk behaviors within an area with high HIV prevalence.^18-21 Despite the CDC’s strong recommendations for PrEP use, lack of insurance coverage and high cost are barriers to universal use. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) provides a list of patient and copayment assistance programs that can be found at the NASTAD website: https://nastad.org/prepcost-resources/prep-assitance-programs.

Continue to: Preconception considerations...

Preconception considerations

In individuals with known HIV infection, preconception consultation with an ObGyn or maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist should be recommended prior to conception.²² Preconception recommendations include addressing optimization of maternal medical comorbidities, addressing routine health screening and vaccinations, performing sexually transmitted infection screening, and optimizing HIV disease status.^3,22,23

With the assistance of adult medicine and infectious disease clinicians, a cART regimen that is sufficient to reliably maintain viral suppression (that is, viral load < 50 copies/mL on 2 separate occasions at least 3 months apart) and is safe for use in pregnancy should be established.³ In serodiscordant couples, recommended mechanisms to prevent HIV transmission during conception include sustained viral suppression in the HIV-positive partner, PrEP use in the HIV-negative partner, and timing of unprotected intercourse during peak fertility only.³

Antepartum care

The initial prenatal visit

Women who have no prior screening for HIV or prior negative HIV results should undergo HIV screening at the first prenatal visit.³ Screening should be performed in accordance with the “opt out method.”⁶ Using this method, a woman without a known diagnosis of HIV infection is told that she will undergo HIV screening as a component of routine prenatal care unless she decides that she does not want this test performed.^6,24,25 At the time of screening, all pregnant women should be provided with comprehensive information regarding HIV screening, HIV screening results, and the implications of HIV infection on pregnancy.²⁶

In the pregnant patient with confirmed HIV infection, all preconception considerations should be addressed. If not already in place, referrals to appropriate providers (infectious disease specialist, ObGyn, MFM specialist) and ancillary support staff (social services, behavioral health support) should be arranged. All efforts should be implemented to optimize additional medical comorbidities. TABLE 3 lists additional prenatal testing requirements.²²

First and second trimester

Antiretroviral adherence and barriers to adherence should be addressed at every prenatal visit. If the patient is started on antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy or is switched to an alternative cART regimen, viral load assessment should be performed 2 to 4 weeks after the start or change in cART and then repeated monthly until undetectable levels are achieved.^3,26 If an undetectable viral load cannot be obtained, cART adherence should be thoroughly evaluated, and the patient should be referred to an infectious disease or HIV treatment specialist.²⁶

If the initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable viral load, repeat viral load assessment can be performed every 3 months throughout the pregnancy.³ If initial prenatal testing indicates an undetectable HIV viral load and the T-lymphocyte count is greater than 200 cells/mm³, repeat viral load testing can be performed every 6 months to ensure stability.³

Early screening for gestational diabetes should be performed in patients receiving protease inhibitors because these agents may interfere with carbohydrate tolerance.^22,26

Continue to: Third trimester...

Third trimester

Women with negative HIV screening at the initial prenatal evaluation should undergo repeat HIV screening in the third trimester if they are at high risk for HIV exposure.²⁵ Factors that determine high-risk status are listed in TABLE 4.²⁷ Sexually transmitted infection screening should be repeated in the third trimester.²⁶

Repeat assessment of the viral load should be completed between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation or sooner if additional indications for early term or late preterm delivery arise.³ Viral load assessments aid in determining delivery timing and route and the need for zidovudine (ZDV) treatment (FIGURE).

Studies that were performed prior to standardized cART use found higher rates of perinatal transmission associated with vaginal delivery when compared with cesarean delivery (CD).^28-30 However, these studies did not account for measures of viral load within their study populations.^28-30

In more recent studies performed in the era of standardized cART and viral load monitoring, CD does not provide protection from perinatal transmission when the maternal viral load is less than 1,000 copies/mL at the time of delivery.³¹ Similarly, delivery prior to 40 weeks’ gestation does not confer protection from perinatal transmission.³²

Alternatively, if the maternal viral load is 1,000 copies/mL or greater, CD should be considered to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission. A scheduled, elective CD at 38 weeks’ gestation is recommended in those with a maternal viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater and no medical indication for earlier delivery in order to decrease the likelihood of labor onset and/or rupture of membranes prior to delivery.^3,33

Intrapartum care

Rapid antigen testing (with follow-up confirmatory testing as indicated) is recommended in patients presenting to labor and delivery with no prior documentation of HIV status.^3,8,26

Despite a significant decrease in perinatal transmission rates over the last 30 years, a large proportion of perinatal transmission cases are thought to result from intrapartum fetal exposure. While the mechanism of transmission is not known, a correlation between maternal viral load and risk for perinatal transmission has been shown. A maternal viral load of less than 1,000 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission risk of less than 2%.^34,35 A maternal viral load between 50 and 999 copies/mL has been associated with a perinatal transmission rate of 1% to 2% compared with less than 1% for a maternal viral load of less than 50 copies/mL or undetectable measures.^5,36,37

These differences in perinatal transmission rates have prompted the recommendation for administration of ZDV for a minimum of 3 hours prior to delivery in mothers with a viral load of 1,000 copies/mL or greater.^4,38 The recommended ZDV dosing is: a 1-hour intravenous loading dose of 2 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg per hour until delivery.^39,40 Patients who opt for vaginal delivery despite nonsuppressed viral loads (≥1,000 copies/mL) after thorough perinatal counseling should receive ZDV at the start of labor through delivery.³ All patients should be continued on cART throughout their intrapartum and postpartum course.

The duration of membrane rupture and the use of invasive fetal monitoring (that is, fetal scalp electrodes) have been assessed as mechanisms of perinatal transmission. Although they were performed prior to the standardized use of cART, several studies demonstrated that increased perinatal transmission rates were associated with invasive fetal monitoring.^34,41,42 While limited data have refuted this finding in women with suppressed viral loads (< 50 copies/mL), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends avoiding the use of invasive fetal monitoring in labor.²⁶

Pre-cART studies demonstrated increased rates of perinatal transmission with longer durations of membrane rupture prior to delivery.^43,44 More recent studies have reevaluated this association and determined that the increased perinatal transmission rates are more likely associated with higher maternal viral loads at the time of delivery rather than duration of membrane rupture.^45-47 No clear evidence describes when or if CD after the onset of labor or rupture of membranes provides protection from perinatal HIV transmission in pregnant women with HIV receiving no antiretroviral drugs or only ZDV during labor.^43,48 CD can be considered for patients in whom scheduled, pre-labor CD was planned who present in labor or with rupture of membranes prior to scheduled CD.²⁶ These, and additional intrapartum considerations, are listed in TABLE 5.^49,50

Appropriate personal protective equipment should be available and donned for all providers present throughout intrapartum management and at delivery.^23,26 Should any provider injury occur, immediate cleansing of the injury site should be performed, followed by referral to proper workplace supervisors for additional laboratory testing and antiretroviral prophylaxis.

Continue to: Postpartum care...

Postpartum care

Postpartum contraception should be offered and provided in accordance with patient request. Regardless of other birth control methods, strict condom use should be advised. PrEP should be discussed and offered for all partners of serodiscordant couples.

Upon outpatient follow-up, assessment and provision of routine health maintenance should be performed. Any abnormal cervical pathology encountered during prenatal care should be managed in accordance with ASCCP guidelines.¹² Follow-up care should be established with adult medicine, infectious disease, and ObGyn clinicians.²⁶

Neonatal considerations

Neonates born to mothers with positive or unknown HIV status should undergo expedited HIV testing.^51,52 Consultation should be conducted with pediatric or neonatology colleagues to determine the antiretroviral regimen and duration of therapy based on presumed HIV status of the neonate. Ideally, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated within 6 hours of delivery.^3,53

Formula feeding should be implemented as maternal HIV infection is one of the few contraindications to breastfeeding.^54,55 The risk of late breast milk transmission, defined as postnatal transmission that occurs after 1 month of age, may vary based on maternal viral load, but it has been reported as high as 8.9 transmissions per 100 person-years of breastfeeding.⁵⁶

Resources available

Care of the pregnant patient with HIV and the reduction of perinatal transmission both depend on early diagnosis of HIV and effective treatment with cART. Such patients benefit from a team-based care model that includes the ObGyn and/or MFM specialist, infectious disease clinician, pediatrician, and social worker. As guidelines evolve for care of these patients, a reference checklist, such as the examples provided at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine website (smfm.org) or at HIV.gov, provide an outline for:

• management before, during, and after pregnancy
• suggestions for management teams of interest to successfully carry out the checklist requirements
• proposals for measurements of quality performance with the use of checklists in the management of HIV in pregnancy.

In addition, assistance with clinical decision making for patients with HIV in pregnancy can be obtained via telephone consultation with the National Clinician Consultation Center–Perinatal HIV/AIDS (888-448-8765), which is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ●

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) 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% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (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.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of 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, but 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. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). 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). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) 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% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (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.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of 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, but 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. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). 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). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

In the uterus, coordinated myometrial cell contraction is not triggered by neural activation; instead, myometrial cells work together as a contractile syncytium through cell-to-cell gap junction connections permitting the intercellular sharing of small molecules, which in turn facilitates activation of the actin-myosin contractile apparatus and coordinated uterine contraction. In myometrial cells, connexin 43 (Cx43) is the main gap junction protein. Cx43 permits the passage of small hydrophilic molecules (ATP) and ions (calcium) cell to cell. Estradiol increases Cx43 synthesis in human myometrial cells.¹ Progesterone decreases Cx43 synthesis effectively isolating myometrial cells, reducing cell-to-cell sharing of chemicals that stimulate contraction, blocking coordinated uterine contraction.² Progesterone suppression of Cx43 synthesis helps to prevent premature uterine contraction during pregnancy. At term, decreases in progesterone levels result in an increase in Cx43 synthesis, facilitating the onset of effective labor. In myometrial cells, antiprogestins, including mifepristone, increase the number of gap junction connections, facilitating a coordinated contractile signal in response to misoprostol or oxytocin.^3,4

It takes time for antiprogestins to stimulate myometrial cell production of Cx43. In the rat myometrium the administration of mifepristone results in a 2.5-fold increase of Cx43 mRNA transcripts within 9 hours and a 5.6-fold increase in 24 hours.³ Hence, most mifepristone treatment protocols involve administering mifepristone and waiting 24 to 48 hours before administering an agent that stimulates myometrial contraction, such as misoprostol. Antiprogestins also increase the sensitivity of myometrial cells to oxytocin stimulation of uterine contractions by increasing Cx43 concentration.⁴

Progesterone also regulates other important biological processes in the cervix, decidua, placenta, and cervix. Antiprogestins can facilitate cervical ripening and disrupt decidual function, interfering with the attachment of pregnancy tissue.⁵ In the cervix, antiprogestins increase matrix metalloproteinase expression, disrupting collagen organization, decreasing cervical tensile strength and leading to cervical ripening.⁶

Pharmacology of mifepristone

Mifepristone is an antiprogestin and antiglucocorticoid with high-affinity binding to both the progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors (FIGURE 1). The phenylaminodimethyl group at C-11 of mifepristone changes the positional equilibrium of helix 12 of the progesterone receptor, reducing the ability of the receptor to bind required co-activators, limiting receptor binding to DNA, resulting in an antiprogesterone effect.⁷ At the low, single-dose used for treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise (200 mg one dose), mifepristone is an antiprogestin. At the high, daily dose used for the treatment of hyperglycemia caused by Cushing disease (≥ 300 mg daily), mifepristone is also an antiglucocorticoid.

Although mifepristone is a powerful antiglucocorticoid, in patients with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, mifepristone does not cause adrenal insufficiency. In people with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, daily administration of mifepristone (≥ 200 mg) for 7 days or longer results in an increase in pituitary secretion of ACTH and adrenal secretion of cortisol, largely overcoming the antiglucocorticoid action of mifepristone.^8-10 This compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol is not possible in patients who have had a hypophysectomy or bilateral adrenalectomy or have adrenal suppression due to long-term treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids. Mifepristone is contraindicated for patients with these conditions because it may cause glucocorticoid insufficiency by blocking glucocorticoid receptors.

The terminal half-life of mifepristone is 18 hours.¹¹ Following oral administration of a single dose of mifepristone 200 mg the peak circulating concentration is reached in 90 minutes. Mifepristone is metabolized by CYP3A4 and is also a strong inhibitor of CYP3A4. Contraindications to the use of mifepristone include adrenal failure, porphyria, hemorrhagic diseases, anticoagulation, an IUD in the uterus, ectopic pregnancy, long-term glucocorticoid administration, and an undiagnosed adnexal mass.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of early missed miscarriage with a gestational sac

For patients with a miscarriage, the treatment options to resolve the pregnancy loss are expectant management, medication, or surgery.¹² Joint decision-making is recommended to establish a management plan that supports the patient’s values. Expectant management is most likely to result in a multi-week process to achieve completion of the miscarriage. A surgical procedure is most likely to result in rapid resolution of the miscarriage with the greatest rate of success. Surgical evacuation of the uterus may be the preferred option for patients who have excessive uterine bleeding or concerning vital signs. Both medical and surgical management are more likely than expectant management to successfully resolve the miscarriage.¹³

In the past, the standard approach to medication management of a miscarriage was the administration of one or more doses of misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1. However, two large trials have reported that the dual-medication sequence of mifepristone followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone for resolving a miscarriage.^14,15 This is probably due to mifepristone making the uterus more responsive to the effects of misoprostol.

Schreiber and colleagues¹⁴ reported a study of 300 patients with an anembryonic gestation or embryonic demise, between 5 and 12 completed weeks of gestation, who were randomly assigned to treatment with mifepristone (200 mg) followed in 24 to 48 hours with vaginal misoprostol (800 µg) 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% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.43).

Surgical evacuation of the uterus occurred less often with mifepristone-misoprostol treatment than with misoprostol monotherapy—9% and 24%, respectively (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.¹⁶ The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen was reported to be more cost-effective than misoprostol alone.¹⁷

Chu and colleagues¹⁵ reported a study of medication treatment of 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, but 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. In this study, mifepristone-misoprostol resulted in fewer patients who did not pass the gestational sac within 7 days after entry into the study than placebo (mifepristone-misoprostol, 17% vs placebo-misoprostol, 24% (P=.043). 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). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the trial results reported that the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol was less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.¹⁸

Misoprostol can be administered by an oral, buccal, rectal, or vaginal route.^19,20 Vaginal administration results in higher circulating concentrations of misoprostol than buccal administration, but both routes of administration produce similar mean uterine tone and mean uterine activity as measured by an intrauterine pressure transducer over 5 hours.²¹ Hence, at our institution, we most often use buccal administration of misoprostol. To assess effectiveness of mifepristone-misoprostol treatment, 1 week after treatment with a pelvic ultrasound to detect expulsion of the gestational sac. Alternatively, a urine pregnancy test can be performed 3 weeks following medication treatment. The mifepristone-misoprostol regimen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of miscarriage.

Continue to: Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise...

Mifepristone-misoprostol for the treatment of fetal demise

Fetal loss in the second or third trimesters is a devastating experience for most patients, painfully echoing in the heart and mind for years. Empathic and effective treatment of fetal loss may reduce the adverse impact of the event. Multiple studies have reported that combinations of mifepristone and misoprostol reduced the time from initiation of labor contractions to birth compared with misoprostol alone.^22-28 In addition, the combination of mifepristone-misoprostol reduced the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve delivery.^22,23

In one clinical trial, 66 patients with fetal demise between 14 and 28 weeks’ gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²² Twenty-four to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 14 to 23 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 400 µg vaginally every 6 hours. For patients from 24 to 28 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 200 µg vaginally every 4 hours. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 6.8 hours and 10.5 hours (P=.002).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required fewer doses of misoprostol (2.1 vs 3.4; P=.002) and a lower total dose of misoprostol (768 µg vs 1,182 µg; P=.003). All patients in the mifepristone group delivered within 24 hours. By contrast, 13% of the patients in the placebo group delivered more than 24 hours after the initiation of misoprostol treatment. Five patients were readmitted with retained products of conception needing suction curettage—4 in the placebo group and 1 in the mifepristone group.²²

In a second clinical trial, 110 patients with fetal demise after 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to receive mifepristone 200 mg or placebo.²³ Thirty-six to 48 hours later, misoprostol for induction of labor was initiated. Among the patients from 20 to 25 completed weeks of gestation, the misoprostol dose was 100 µg vaginally every 6 hours for a maximum of 4 doses. For patients ≥26 weeks gestation, the misoprostol dose was 50 µg vaginally every 4 hours for a maximum of 6 doses. The median times from initiation of misoprostol to birth for the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups were 9.8 hours and 16.3 hours. (P=.001).

Compared with the patients in the placebo-misoprostol group, the patients in the mifepristone-misoprostol group required a lower total dose of misoprostol (110 µg vs 198 µg, P<.001).

Delivery within 24 hours following initiation of misoprostol occurred in 93% and 73% of the patients in the mifepristone and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients in the mifepristone group, shivering occurred more frequently among the patients in the placebo group (7.5% vs 19.2%; P=.09), likely because they received greater doses of misoprostol.²³

Miscarriage and fetal demise frequently cause patients to experience a range of emotions including denial, numbness, grief, anger, guilt, and depression. It may take months or years for people to progress to a tentative acceptance of the loss, refocusing on future aspirations. Empathic care and timely and effective medical intervention to resolve the pregnancy loss optimize outcomes. For medication treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise, mifepristone is an important agent because it improves the success rate for resolution of miscarriage without surgery and it shortens the time of labor for inductions for fetal demise. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the specialists leading advances in treatment of miscarriage and fetal demise. I encourage you to use mifepristone in your care of appropriate patients with miscarriage and fetal demise. ●

Each week, Kim Puterbaugh, MD, sees several pregnant patients at a Cleveland hospital who are experiencing complications involving bleeding or infection. The ob.gyn. has to make quick decisions about how to treat them, including whether to remove the dead or dying fetus to protect the health and life of the mother. Leaving in place a fetus that has no chance of survival dramatically increases the chance of maternal infection and permanent injury.

But now her medical decisions are complicated by Ohio’s new abortion law, which generally prohibits abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy if cardiac activity is detected in the embryo or fetus – which can persist for hours or days even if a pregnancy has no chance of progressing. Given the new law, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center has streamlined its system of having an administrator and legal team on call for Dr. Puterbaugh and other physicians if anyone questions whether the planned treatment is allowed under the law.

Since the Supreme Court erased the constitutional right to abortion in June, Dr. Puterbaugh said these cases put her and doctors like her in an impossible position – squeezing doctors between antiabortion laws in Ohio and other states and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. That 1986 law requires hospitals and physicians to provide screening and stabilizing treatment – including abortion, if necessary – in emergency situations.

“It’s a challenge to balance both those two things,” said Dr. Puterbaugh, president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists. “But it’s not really a challenge to me because, in my mind, the life and health of the mother always comes first.”

The Biden administration argues that EMTALA trumps state abortion bans in emergency situations. On Aug. 2, the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Idaho law that bans abortion in nearly all circumstances. The suit claims the law would make it a criminal offense for medical providers to comply with EMTALA’s requirement to provide abortion, if needed, for women experiencing emergency pregnancy complications.

In a July policy guidance and letter, the Department of Health & Human Services reaffirmed that EMTALA requires hospitals and physicians to offer life- or health-saving medical services, including abortion, in emergency situations. The letter refers to situations such as ectopic pregnancies, severe blood pressure spikes known as preeclampsia, and premature ruptures of the membrane causing a woman’s water to break before her pregnancy is viable.

The guidance stressed that this federal requirement supersedes any state laws that bar abortion, and that hospitals and physicians who don’t comply with the federal mandate could face civil fines and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

There are no known reports so far of EMTALA investigations arising from denial of emergency care in pregnancy situations.

But elected officials in states that have sharply restricted abortion disagree with the federal judgment. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in July to prevent the federal government from using the EMTALA law to require abortions in emergency cases. The suit claims that EMTALA doesn’t specifically mandate particular medical procedures such as abortion.

Abortion foes argue that state antiabortion laws already include adequate exceptions when a pregnant woman’s life or health is in danger. John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said one of Texas’ laws specifies that treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages is not prohibited. In addition, the law defines a medical emergency allowing abortion as a condition in which a woman is at serious risk of a “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

Mr. Seago blamed the news media and medical associations for deliberately sowing confusion about the laws. “The law is very clear,” he said.

Legal wrangling aside, in practice, physicians and hospital lawyers say much depends on the interpretation of vaguely worded exceptions in state abortion bans, and that’s further complicated by the existence of contradictory laws, such as those banning abortion based on cardiac activity. And medical providers don’t want to risk criminal prosecution, fines, and loss of licensure if someone accuses them of violating these confusing laws.

Louise Joy, an attorney in Austin, Tex., who represents hospitals and other health care providers, said her clients perhaps are being overly cautious, but that’s not surprising. “I try to encourage them to do the right thing, but I can’t assure them they’ll be risk free.”

A lot hinges on when a pregnancy-ending complication is deemed an emergency, a moment that is hard to define. Some Missouri women have come to the hospital ED with mild cramping and bleeding and were found to have an ectopic pregnancy that hadn’t ruptured yet, colleagues have told Alison Haddock, MD, a Houston emergency physician who chairs the board of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The standard treatment is to provide the drug methotrexate, which can terminate a pregnancy.

“You’re stable until it ruptures, then it becomes unstable,” she said. “But how unstable do you need to be? The woman’s life is not clearly at risk yet. It’s not clear if EMTALA applies. There will be a lot of gray areas that make it really tough for emergency physicians who want to do what’s right for patients without violating any laws.”

Physicians and hospital attorneys are hoping for clearer federal guidance and guarantees of protection from state prosecutors who might oppose their medical judgment on political grounds.

“This is when we need the federal government to step up and say: ‘Doctors, you must provide the standard of care, and we will prevent the prosecution of anyone who is following appropriate medical practices and doing the right thing for patients,” Ms. Joy said.

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

Each week, Kim Puterbaugh, MD, sees several pregnant patients at a Cleveland hospital who are experiencing complications involving bleeding or infection. The ob.gyn. has to make quick decisions about how to treat them, including whether to remove the dead or dying fetus to protect the health and life of the mother. Leaving in place a fetus that has no chance of survival dramatically increases the chance of maternal infection and permanent injury.

But now her medical decisions are complicated by Ohio’s new abortion law, which generally prohibits abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy if cardiac activity is detected in the embryo or fetus – which can persist for hours or days even if a pregnancy has no chance of progressing. Given the new law, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center has streamlined its system of having an administrator and legal team on call for Dr. Puterbaugh and other physicians if anyone questions whether the planned treatment is allowed under the law.

Since the Supreme Court erased the constitutional right to abortion in June, Dr. Puterbaugh said these cases put her and doctors like her in an impossible position – squeezing doctors between antiabortion laws in Ohio and other states and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. That 1986 law requires hospitals and physicians to provide screening and stabilizing treatment – including abortion, if necessary – in emergency situations.

“It’s a challenge to balance both those two things,” said Dr. Puterbaugh, president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists. “But it’s not really a challenge to me because, in my mind, the life and health of the mother always comes first.”

The Biden administration argues that EMTALA trumps state abortion bans in emergency situations. On Aug. 2, the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Idaho law that bans abortion in nearly all circumstances. The suit claims the law would make it a criminal offense for medical providers to comply with EMTALA’s requirement to provide abortion, if needed, for women experiencing emergency pregnancy complications.

In a July policy guidance and letter, the Department of Health & Human Services reaffirmed that EMTALA requires hospitals and physicians to offer life- or health-saving medical services, including abortion, in emergency situations. The letter refers to situations such as ectopic pregnancies, severe blood pressure spikes known as preeclampsia, and premature ruptures of the membrane causing a woman’s water to break before her pregnancy is viable.

The guidance stressed that this federal requirement supersedes any state laws that bar abortion, and that hospitals and physicians who don’t comply with the federal mandate could face civil fines and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

There are no known reports so far of EMTALA investigations arising from denial of emergency care in pregnancy situations.

But elected officials in states that have sharply restricted abortion disagree with the federal judgment. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in July to prevent the federal government from using the EMTALA law to require abortions in emergency cases. The suit claims that EMTALA doesn’t specifically mandate particular medical procedures such as abortion.

Abortion foes argue that state antiabortion laws already include adequate exceptions when a pregnant woman’s life or health is in danger. John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said one of Texas’ laws specifies that treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages is not prohibited. In addition, the law defines a medical emergency allowing abortion as a condition in which a woman is at serious risk of a “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

Mr. Seago blamed the news media and medical associations for deliberately sowing confusion about the laws. “The law is very clear,” he said.

Legal wrangling aside, in practice, physicians and hospital lawyers say much depends on the interpretation of vaguely worded exceptions in state abortion bans, and that’s further complicated by the existence of contradictory laws, such as those banning abortion based on cardiac activity. And medical providers don’t want to risk criminal prosecution, fines, and loss of licensure if someone accuses them of violating these confusing laws.

Louise Joy, an attorney in Austin, Tex., who represents hospitals and other health care providers, said her clients perhaps are being overly cautious, but that’s not surprising. “I try to encourage them to do the right thing, but I can’t assure them they’ll be risk free.”

A lot hinges on when a pregnancy-ending complication is deemed an emergency, a moment that is hard to define. Some Missouri women have come to the hospital ED with mild cramping and bleeding and were found to have an ectopic pregnancy that hadn’t ruptured yet, colleagues have told Alison Haddock, MD, a Houston emergency physician who chairs the board of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The standard treatment is to provide the drug methotrexate, which can terminate a pregnancy.

“You’re stable until it ruptures, then it becomes unstable,” she said. “But how unstable do you need to be? The woman’s life is not clearly at risk yet. It’s not clear if EMTALA applies. There will be a lot of gray areas that make it really tough for emergency physicians who want to do what’s right for patients without violating any laws.”

Physicians and hospital attorneys are hoping for clearer federal guidance and guarantees of protection from state prosecutors who might oppose their medical judgment on political grounds.

“This is when we need the federal government to step up and say: ‘Doctors, you must provide the standard of care, and we will prevent the prosecution of anyone who is following appropriate medical practices and doing the right thing for patients,” Ms. Joy said.

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

Each week, Kim Puterbaugh, MD, sees several pregnant patients at a Cleveland hospital who are experiencing complications involving bleeding or infection. The ob.gyn. has to make quick decisions about how to treat them, including whether to remove the dead or dying fetus to protect the health and life of the mother. Leaving in place a fetus that has no chance of survival dramatically increases the chance of maternal infection and permanent injury.

But now her medical decisions are complicated by Ohio’s new abortion law, which generally prohibits abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy if cardiac activity is detected in the embryo or fetus – which can persist for hours or days even if a pregnancy has no chance of progressing. Given the new law, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center has streamlined its system of having an administrator and legal team on call for Dr. Puterbaugh and other physicians if anyone questions whether the planned treatment is allowed under the law.

Since the Supreme Court erased the constitutional right to abortion in June, Dr. Puterbaugh said these cases put her and doctors like her in an impossible position – squeezing doctors between antiabortion laws in Ohio and other states and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. That 1986 law requires hospitals and physicians to provide screening and stabilizing treatment – including abortion, if necessary – in emergency situations.

“It’s a challenge to balance both those two things,” said Dr. Puterbaugh, president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists. “But it’s not really a challenge to me because, in my mind, the life and health of the mother always comes first.”

The Biden administration argues that EMTALA trumps state abortion bans in emergency situations. On Aug. 2, the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Idaho law that bans abortion in nearly all circumstances. The suit claims the law would make it a criminal offense for medical providers to comply with EMTALA’s requirement to provide abortion, if needed, for women experiencing emergency pregnancy complications.

In a July policy guidance and letter, the Department of Health & Human Services reaffirmed that EMTALA requires hospitals and physicians to offer life- or health-saving medical services, including abortion, in emergency situations. The letter refers to situations such as ectopic pregnancies, severe blood pressure spikes known as preeclampsia, and premature ruptures of the membrane causing a woman’s water to break before her pregnancy is viable.

The guidance stressed that this federal requirement supersedes any state laws that bar abortion, and that hospitals and physicians who don’t comply with the federal mandate could face civil fines and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

There are no known reports so far of EMTALA investigations arising from denial of emergency care in pregnancy situations.

But elected officials in states that have sharply restricted abortion disagree with the federal judgment. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in July to prevent the federal government from using the EMTALA law to require abortions in emergency cases. The suit claims that EMTALA doesn’t specifically mandate particular medical procedures such as abortion.

Abortion foes argue that state antiabortion laws already include adequate exceptions when a pregnant woman’s life or health is in danger. John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said one of Texas’ laws specifies that treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages is not prohibited. In addition, the law defines a medical emergency allowing abortion as a condition in which a woman is at serious risk of a “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

Mr. Seago blamed the news media and medical associations for deliberately sowing confusion about the laws. “The law is very clear,” he said.

Legal wrangling aside, in practice, physicians and hospital lawyers say much depends on the interpretation of vaguely worded exceptions in state abortion bans, and that’s further complicated by the existence of contradictory laws, such as those banning abortion based on cardiac activity. And medical providers don’t want to risk criminal prosecution, fines, and loss of licensure if someone accuses them of violating these confusing laws.

Louise Joy, an attorney in Austin, Tex., who represents hospitals and other health care providers, said her clients perhaps are being overly cautious, but that’s not surprising. “I try to encourage them to do the right thing, but I can’t assure them they’ll be risk free.”

A lot hinges on when a pregnancy-ending complication is deemed an emergency, a moment that is hard to define. Some Missouri women have come to the hospital ED with mild cramping and bleeding and were found to have an ectopic pregnancy that hadn’t ruptured yet, colleagues have told Alison Haddock, MD, a Houston emergency physician who chairs the board of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The standard treatment is to provide the drug methotrexate, which can terminate a pregnancy.

“You’re stable until it ruptures, then it becomes unstable,” she said. “But how unstable do you need to be? The woman’s life is not clearly at risk yet. It’s not clear if EMTALA applies. There will be a lot of gray areas that make it really tough for emergency physicians who want to do what’s right for patients without violating any laws.”

Physicians and hospital attorneys are hoping for clearer federal guidance and guarantees of protection from state prosecutors who might oppose their medical judgment on political grounds.

“This is when we need the federal government to step up and say: ‘Doctors, you must provide the standard of care, and we will prevent the prosecution of anyone who is following appropriate medical practices and doing the right thing for patients,” Ms. Joy said.

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

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

Continue to: Methods...

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.
 

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Continue to: Clinic environment...

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“[Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)
 

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.
 

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male- dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries. ¹⁹  Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.


Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other   specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs. ^8,24  However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; [email protected]