Obstetrics

Opioid-related deaths are a major cause of mortality in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 72,151 and 93,331 drug overdose deaths in 2019 and 2020, respectively, and drug overdose deaths have continued to increase in 2021.¹ The majority of drug overdose deaths are due to opioids. There are many factors contributing to this rise, including an incredibly high rate of opioid prescriptions in this country.² The CDC reported that in 3.6% of US counties, there are more opioid prescriptions filled each year than number of residents in the county.³ The consumption of opioids per person in the US is approximately four times greater than countries with excellent health outcomes, including Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.⁴ Some US physicians have opioid prescribing practices that are inconsistent with good medical practice in other countries, prescribing powerful opioids and an excessive number of pills per opioid prescription.² We must continue to evolve our clinical practices to reduce opioid use while continually improving patient outcomes.

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in the United States. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 2020 there were approximately 1,150,000 US cesarean births.⁵ Following cesarean birth, patients who were previously naïve to opioid medications were reported to have a 0.33% to 2.2% probability of transitioning to the persistent use of opioid prescriptions.^6-8 Predictors of persistent opioid use after cesarean birth included a history of tobacco use, back pain, migraine headaches, and antidepressant or benzodiazepine use.⁶ The use of cesarean birth pain management protocols that prioritize multimodal analgesia and opioid sparing is warranted.

Multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth have been shown to reduce the use of opioid medications in the hospital and at discharge without a clinically significant increase in pain scores or a reduction in patient satisfaction (TABLE).^9-13 For example, Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the implementation of a multimodal pain management protocol reduced the percent of patients using oral opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth from 68% to 45%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients using opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth was reduced from 45% preintervention to 18% postintervention. In addition, these studies showed that multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth also reduced opioid prescribing at discharge. Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the percent of patients provided an opioid prescription at discharge was reduced from 91% to 40%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients who took opioids after discharge was reduced from 24% preintervention to 9% postintervention. These studies were not randomized controlled clinical trials, but they do provide strong evidence that a focused intervention to reduce opioid medications in the management of pain after cesarean surgery can be successful without decreasing patient satisfaction or increasing reported pain scores. In these studies, it is likely that the influence, enthusiasm, and commitment of the study leaders to the change process contributed to the success of these opioid-sparing pain management programs.

Continue to: Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery...

Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery

Fundamental inclusions of multimodal analgesia for cesarean surgery include:

• exquisite attention to pain control during the surgical procedure by both the anesthesiologist and surgeon, with prioritization of spinal anesthesia that includes morphine and fentanyl
• regularly scheduled administration of intravenous ketorolac during the first 24 hours postcesarean
• regularly scheduled administration of both acetaminophen and ibuprofen, rather than “as needed” dosing
• using analgesics that work through different molecular pathways (ibuprofen and acetaminophen) (See Table.).

The significance of neuraxial and truncal nerve blockade for post-cesarean delivery pain control

Administration of a long-acting intra­thecal opioid such as morphine lengthens time to first analgesic request after surgery and lowers 24-hour post‒cesarean delivery opioid requirement.¹⁴ If a patient requires general anesthesia and receives no spinal opioid, a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block or quadratus lumborum (QL) block for postpartum pain control can lower associated postpartum opioid consumption. However, TAP or QL blocks confer no additional benefit to patients who receive spinal morphine,¹⁵ nor do they confer added benefit when combined with a multimodal pain management regimen postdelivery vs the multimodal regimen alone.¹⁶). TAP blocks administered to patients with severe breakthrough pain after spinal anesthesia help to lower opioid consumption.¹⁷ Further research is warranted on the use of TAP, QL, or other truncal blocks to spare opioid requirement after cesarean delivery in women with chronic pain, opioid use disorder, or those undergoing higher-complexity surgery such as cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum.

NSAIDs: Potential adverse effects

As we decrease the use of opioid medications and increase the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we should reflect on the potential adverse effects of NSAID treatment in some patients. Specifically, the impact of ketorolac on hypertension, platelet function, and breastfeeding warrant consideration.

In the past, some studies reported that NSAID treatment is associated with a modest increase in blood pressure (BP), with a mean increase of 5 mm Hg.¹⁸ However, multiple recent studies report that in women with preeclampsia with and without severe features, postpartum administration of ibuprofen and ketorolac did not increase BP or delay resolution of hypertension.^19-22 In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of ibuprofen and acetaminophen on BP, neither medication was associated with an increase in BP.¹⁹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the use of NSAIDs as one component of multimodal analgesia to help reduce the use of opioids.²³

NSAIDs can inhibit platelet function and this effect is of clinical concern for people with platelet defects. However, a meta-analysis of clinical trials reported no difference in bleeding between surgical patients administered ketorolac or control participants.²⁴ Alternative opioid-sparing adjuncts (TAP or QL blocks) may be considered for patients who cannot receive ketorolac based on a history of platelet deficiency. Furthermore, patients with ongoing coagulation defects after surgery from severe postpartum hemorrhage, hyperfibrinolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or dilutional coagulopathy may have both limited platelet reserves and acute kidney injury. The need to postpone the initiation of NSAIDs in such patients should prompt alternate options such as TAP or QL blocks or dosing of an indwelling epidural when possible, in conjunction with acetaminophen. Patients who have a contraindication to ketorolac due to peptic ulcer disease or renal insufficiency may also benefit from TAP and QL blocks after cesarean delivery, although more studies are needed in these patients.

Both ketorolac and ibuprofen transfer to breast milk. The relative infant dose for ketorolac and ibuprofen is very low—0.2% and 0.9%, respectively.^25,26 The World Health Organization advises that ibuprofen is compatible with breastfeeding.²⁷ Of interest, in an enhanced recovery after cesarean clinical trial, scheduled ketorolac administration resulted in more mothers exclusively breastfeeding at discharge compared with “as needed” ketorolac treatment, 67% versus 48%, respectively; P = .046.²⁸

Conclusion

Many factors influence a person’s experience of their surgery, including their pain symptoms. Factors that modulate a person’s perception of pain following surgery include their personality, social supports, and genetic factors. The technical skill of the anesthesiologist, surgeon, and nurses, and the confidence of the patient in the surgical care team are important factors influencing a person’s global experience of their surgery, including their experience of pain. Patients’ expectations regarding postoperative pain and psychological distress surrounding surgery may also influence their pain experience. Assuring patients that their pain will be addressed adequately, and helping them manage peripartum anxiety, also may favorably impact their pain experience.

Following a surgical procedure, a surgeon’s top goal is the full recovery of the patient to normal activity as soon as possible with as few complications as possible. Persistent opioid dependence is a serious long-term complication of surgery. Decades ago, most heroin users reported that heroin was the first opioid they used. However, the gateway drug to heroin use has evolved. In a recent study, 75% of heroin users reported that the first opioid they used was a prescription opioid.²⁹ In managing surgical pain we want to minimize the use of opioids and reduce the risk of persistent opioid use following discharge. We believe that implementing a multimodal approach to the management of pain with additional targeted therapy for patients at risk for higher opioid requirement will reduce the perioperative and postdischarge use of opioid analgesics. ●

Opioid-related deaths are a major cause of mortality in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 72,151 and 93,331 drug overdose deaths in 2019 and 2020, respectively, and drug overdose deaths have continued to increase in 2021.¹ The majority of drug overdose deaths are due to opioids. There are many factors contributing to this rise, including an incredibly high rate of opioid prescriptions in this country.² The CDC reported that in 3.6% of US counties, there are more opioid prescriptions filled each year than number of residents in the county.³ The consumption of opioids per person in the US is approximately four times greater than countries with excellent health outcomes, including Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.⁴ Some US physicians have opioid prescribing practices that are inconsistent with good medical practice in other countries, prescribing powerful opioids and an excessive number of pills per opioid prescription.² We must continue to evolve our clinical practices to reduce opioid use while continually improving patient outcomes.

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in the United States. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 2020 there were approximately 1,150,000 US cesarean births.⁵ Following cesarean birth, patients who were previously naïve to opioid medications were reported to have a 0.33% to 2.2% probability of transitioning to the persistent use of opioid prescriptions.^6-8 Predictors of persistent opioid use after cesarean birth included a history of tobacco use, back pain, migraine headaches, and antidepressant or benzodiazepine use.⁶ The use of cesarean birth pain management protocols that prioritize multimodal analgesia and opioid sparing is warranted.

Multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth have been shown to reduce the use of opioid medications in the hospital and at discharge without a clinically significant increase in pain scores or a reduction in patient satisfaction (TABLE).^9-13 For example, Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the implementation of a multimodal pain management protocol reduced the percent of patients using oral opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth from 68% to 45%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients using opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth was reduced from 45% preintervention to 18% postintervention. In addition, these studies showed that multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth also reduced opioid prescribing at discharge. Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the percent of patients provided an opioid prescription at discharge was reduced from 91% to 40%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients who took opioids after discharge was reduced from 24% preintervention to 9% postintervention. These studies were not randomized controlled clinical trials, but they do provide strong evidence that a focused intervention to reduce opioid medications in the management of pain after cesarean surgery can be successful without decreasing patient satisfaction or increasing reported pain scores. In these studies, it is likely that the influence, enthusiasm, and commitment of the study leaders to the change process contributed to the success of these opioid-sparing pain management programs.

Continue to: Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery...

Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery

Fundamental inclusions of multimodal analgesia for cesarean surgery include:

• exquisite attention to pain control during the surgical procedure by both the anesthesiologist and surgeon, with prioritization of spinal anesthesia that includes morphine and fentanyl
• regularly scheduled administration of intravenous ketorolac during the first 24 hours postcesarean
• regularly scheduled administration of both acetaminophen and ibuprofen, rather than “as needed” dosing
• using analgesics that work through different molecular pathways (ibuprofen and acetaminophen) (See Table.).

The significance of neuraxial and truncal nerve blockade for post-cesarean delivery pain control

Administration of a long-acting intra­thecal opioid such as morphine lengthens time to first analgesic request after surgery and lowers 24-hour post‒cesarean delivery opioid requirement.¹⁴ If a patient requires general anesthesia and receives no spinal opioid, a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block or quadratus lumborum (QL) block for postpartum pain control can lower associated postpartum opioid consumption. However, TAP or QL blocks confer no additional benefit to patients who receive spinal morphine,¹⁵ nor do they confer added benefit when combined with a multimodal pain management regimen postdelivery vs the multimodal regimen alone.¹⁶). TAP blocks administered to patients with severe breakthrough pain after spinal anesthesia help to lower opioid consumption.¹⁷ Further research is warranted on the use of TAP, QL, or other truncal blocks to spare opioid requirement after cesarean delivery in women with chronic pain, opioid use disorder, or those undergoing higher-complexity surgery such as cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum.

NSAIDs: Potential adverse effects

As we decrease the use of opioid medications and increase the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we should reflect on the potential adverse effects of NSAID treatment in some patients. Specifically, the impact of ketorolac on hypertension, platelet function, and breastfeeding warrant consideration.

In the past, some studies reported that NSAID treatment is associated with a modest increase in blood pressure (BP), with a mean increase of 5 mm Hg.¹⁸ However, multiple recent studies report that in women with preeclampsia with and without severe features, postpartum administration of ibuprofen and ketorolac did not increase BP or delay resolution of hypertension.^19-22 In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of ibuprofen and acetaminophen on BP, neither medication was associated with an increase in BP.¹⁹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the use of NSAIDs as one component of multimodal analgesia to help reduce the use of opioids.²³

NSAIDs can inhibit platelet function and this effect is of clinical concern for people with platelet defects. However, a meta-analysis of clinical trials reported no difference in bleeding between surgical patients administered ketorolac or control participants.²⁴ Alternative opioid-sparing adjuncts (TAP or QL blocks) may be considered for patients who cannot receive ketorolac based on a history of platelet deficiency. Furthermore, patients with ongoing coagulation defects after surgery from severe postpartum hemorrhage, hyperfibrinolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or dilutional coagulopathy may have both limited platelet reserves and acute kidney injury. The need to postpone the initiation of NSAIDs in such patients should prompt alternate options such as TAP or QL blocks or dosing of an indwelling epidural when possible, in conjunction with acetaminophen. Patients who have a contraindication to ketorolac due to peptic ulcer disease or renal insufficiency may also benefit from TAP and QL blocks after cesarean delivery, although more studies are needed in these patients.

Both ketorolac and ibuprofen transfer to breast milk. The relative infant dose for ketorolac and ibuprofen is very low—0.2% and 0.9%, respectively.^25,26 The World Health Organization advises that ibuprofen is compatible with breastfeeding.²⁷ Of interest, in an enhanced recovery after cesarean clinical trial, scheduled ketorolac administration resulted in more mothers exclusively breastfeeding at discharge compared with “as needed” ketorolac treatment, 67% versus 48%, respectively; P = .046.²⁸

Conclusion

Many factors influence a person’s experience of their surgery, including their pain symptoms. Factors that modulate a person’s perception of pain following surgery include their personality, social supports, and genetic factors. The technical skill of the anesthesiologist, surgeon, and nurses, and the confidence of the patient in the surgical care team are important factors influencing a person’s global experience of their surgery, including their experience of pain. Patients’ expectations regarding postoperative pain and psychological distress surrounding surgery may also influence their pain experience. Assuring patients that their pain will be addressed adequately, and helping them manage peripartum anxiety, also may favorably impact their pain experience.

Following a surgical procedure, a surgeon’s top goal is the full recovery of the patient to normal activity as soon as possible with as few complications as possible. Persistent opioid dependence is a serious long-term complication of surgery. Decades ago, most heroin users reported that heroin was the first opioid they used. However, the gateway drug to heroin use has evolved. In a recent study, 75% of heroin users reported that the first opioid they used was a prescription opioid.²⁹ In managing surgical pain we want to minimize the use of opioids and reduce the risk of persistent opioid use following discharge. We believe that implementing a multimodal approach to the management of pain with additional targeted therapy for patients at risk for higher opioid requirement will reduce the perioperative and postdischarge use of opioid analgesics. ●

Opioid-related deaths are a major cause of mortality in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 72,151 and 93,331 drug overdose deaths in 2019 and 2020, respectively, and drug overdose deaths have continued to increase in 2021.¹ The majority of drug overdose deaths are due to opioids. There are many factors contributing to this rise, including an incredibly high rate of opioid prescriptions in this country.² The CDC reported that in 3.6% of US counties, there are more opioid prescriptions filled each year than number of residents in the county.³ The consumption of opioids per person in the US is approximately four times greater than countries with excellent health outcomes, including Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.⁴ Some US physicians have opioid prescribing practices that are inconsistent with good medical practice in other countries, prescribing powerful opioids and an excessive number of pills per opioid prescription.² We must continue to evolve our clinical practices to reduce opioid use while continually improving patient outcomes.

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in the United States. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 2020 there were approximately 1,150,000 US cesarean births.⁵ Following cesarean birth, patients who were previously naïve to opioid medications were reported to have a 0.33% to 2.2% probability of transitioning to the persistent use of opioid prescriptions.^6-8 Predictors of persistent opioid use after cesarean birth included a history of tobacco use, back pain, migraine headaches, and antidepressant or benzodiazepine use.⁶ The use of cesarean birth pain management protocols that prioritize multimodal analgesia and opioid sparing is warranted.

Multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth have been shown to reduce the use of opioid medications in the hospital and at discharge without a clinically significant increase in pain scores or a reduction in patient satisfaction (TABLE).^9-13 For example, Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the implementation of a multimodal pain management protocol reduced the percent of patients using oral opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth from 68% to 45%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients using opioids during hospitalization for cesarean birth was reduced from 45% preintervention to 18% postintervention. In addition, these studies showed that multimodal pain management protocols for cesarean birth also reduced opioid prescribing at discharge. Holland and colleagues⁹ reported that the percent of patients provided an opioid prescription at discharge was reduced from 91% to 40%, pre- and post-intervention, respectively. Mehraban and colleagues¹² reported that the percent of patients who took opioids after discharge was reduced from 24% preintervention to 9% postintervention. These studies were not randomized controlled clinical trials, but they do provide strong evidence that a focused intervention to reduce opioid medications in the management of pain after cesarean surgery can be successful without decreasing patient satisfaction or increasing reported pain scores. In these studies, it is likely that the influence, enthusiasm, and commitment of the study leaders to the change process contributed to the success of these opioid-sparing pain management programs.

Continue to: Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery...

Key features of a multimodal analgesia intervention for cesarean surgery

Fundamental inclusions of multimodal analgesia for cesarean surgery include:

• exquisite attention to pain control during the surgical procedure by both the anesthesiologist and surgeon, with prioritization of spinal anesthesia that includes morphine and fentanyl
• regularly scheduled administration of intravenous ketorolac during the first 24 hours postcesarean
• regularly scheduled administration of both acetaminophen and ibuprofen, rather than “as needed” dosing
• using analgesics that work through different molecular pathways (ibuprofen and acetaminophen) (See Table.).

The significance of neuraxial and truncal nerve blockade for post-cesarean delivery pain control

Administration of a long-acting intra­thecal opioid such as morphine lengthens time to first analgesic request after surgery and lowers 24-hour post‒cesarean delivery opioid requirement.¹⁴ If a patient requires general anesthesia and receives no spinal opioid, a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block or quadratus lumborum (QL) block for postpartum pain control can lower associated postpartum opioid consumption. However, TAP or QL blocks confer no additional benefit to patients who receive spinal morphine,¹⁵ nor do they confer added benefit when combined with a multimodal pain management regimen postdelivery vs the multimodal regimen alone.¹⁶). TAP blocks administered to patients with severe breakthrough pain after spinal anesthesia help to lower opioid consumption.¹⁷ Further research is warranted on the use of TAP, QL, or other truncal blocks to spare opioid requirement after cesarean delivery in women with chronic pain, opioid use disorder, or those undergoing higher-complexity surgery such as cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum.

NSAIDs: Potential adverse effects

As we decrease the use of opioid medications and increase the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we should reflect on the potential adverse effects of NSAID treatment in some patients. Specifically, the impact of ketorolac on hypertension, platelet function, and breastfeeding warrant consideration.

In the past, some studies reported that NSAID treatment is associated with a modest increase in blood pressure (BP), with a mean increase of 5 mm Hg.¹⁸ However, multiple recent studies report that in women with preeclampsia with and without severe features, postpartum administration of ibuprofen and ketorolac did not increase BP or delay resolution of hypertension.^19-22 In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of ibuprofen and acetaminophen on BP, neither medication was associated with an increase in BP.¹⁹ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the use of NSAIDs as one component of multimodal analgesia to help reduce the use of opioids.²³

NSAIDs can inhibit platelet function and this effect is of clinical concern for people with platelet defects. However, a meta-analysis of clinical trials reported no difference in bleeding between surgical patients administered ketorolac or control participants.²⁴ Alternative opioid-sparing adjuncts (TAP or QL blocks) may be considered for patients who cannot receive ketorolac based on a history of platelet deficiency. Furthermore, patients with ongoing coagulation defects after surgery from severe postpartum hemorrhage, hyperfibrinolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or dilutional coagulopathy may have both limited platelet reserves and acute kidney injury. The need to postpone the initiation of NSAIDs in such patients should prompt alternate options such as TAP or QL blocks or dosing of an indwelling epidural when possible, in conjunction with acetaminophen. Patients who have a contraindication to ketorolac due to peptic ulcer disease or renal insufficiency may also benefit from TAP and QL blocks after cesarean delivery, although more studies are needed in these patients.

Both ketorolac and ibuprofen transfer to breast milk. The relative infant dose for ketorolac and ibuprofen is very low—0.2% and 0.9%, respectively.^25,26 The World Health Organization advises that ibuprofen is compatible with breastfeeding.²⁷ Of interest, in an enhanced recovery after cesarean clinical trial, scheduled ketorolac administration resulted in more mothers exclusively breastfeeding at discharge compared with “as needed” ketorolac treatment, 67% versus 48%, respectively; P = .046.²⁸

Conclusion

Many factors influence a person’s experience of their surgery, including their pain symptoms. Factors that modulate a person’s perception of pain following surgery include their personality, social supports, and genetic factors. The technical skill of the anesthesiologist, surgeon, and nurses, and the confidence of the patient in the surgical care team are important factors influencing a person’s global experience of their surgery, including their experience of pain. Patients’ expectations regarding postoperative pain and psychological distress surrounding surgery may also influence their pain experience. Assuring patients that their pain will be addressed adequately, and helping them manage peripartum anxiety, also may favorably impact their pain experience.

Following a surgical procedure, a surgeon’s top goal is the full recovery of the patient to normal activity as soon as possible with as few complications as possible. Persistent opioid dependence is a serious long-term complication of surgery. Decades ago, most heroin users reported that heroin was the first opioid they used. However, the gateway drug to heroin use has evolved. In a recent study, 75% of heroin users reported that the first opioid they used was a prescription opioid.²⁹ In managing surgical pain we want to minimize the use of opioids and reduce the risk of persistent opioid use following discharge. We believe that implementing a multimodal approach to the management of pain with additional targeted therapy for patients at risk for higher opioid requirement will reduce the perioperative and postdischarge use of opioid analgesics. ●

In a new evaluation of hospital maternity services, 237 facilities in 38 states earned high-performing status from U.S. News & World Report.

“The Best Hospitals for Maternity” looked at data for 2019 and covered uncomplicated but not high-risk pregnancies. “All families deserve to be informed on how hospitals perform on key indicators of quality, which is why U.S. News has compiled and published a trove of maternal health data from hospitals across the country,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at U.S. News, said in a written statement.

The 237 best performers were selected from an overall pool of 571 hospitals that participated in the analysis, representing every state except Alaska, Arkansas, and Vermont, U.S. News said, noting that about 2,700 hospitals in the United States offer maternity services.

California has the highest number of best performers, 33, followed by Illinois and New Jersey, both with 15. Colorado is home to 14 best-performing hospitals, Michigan has 12, and North Carolina and Wisconsin each have 12. “Hospitals that performed well had fewer newborn complications, fewer early deliveries and fewer C-sections, compared to other hospitals across the nation,” Mr. Harder said.

The composite score constructed by U.S. News involved five quality measures: nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex cesarean delivery rates; early elective delivery rates; unexpected newborn complications rates; routine vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery availability; and exclusive breast milk–feeding rates. The composite score averaged 80.0 for high performers and 54.9 for the other participating hospitals, U.S. News reported.

Averages for the high performers on each of the five measures looked like this:
 

• C-section rate, 21.1%.
• Early elective delivery rate, 1.3%.
• Overall unexpected newborn complication rates, 2.38%
• Exclusive breast milk–feeding rate, 58.6%.
• VBAC availability, 92.4%.

Data for four measures were collected from the hospitals via online survey over a 4-month window that began on April 29, 2021. Rates of early elective delivery came from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Care Compare.

[email protected]

In a new evaluation of hospital maternity services, 237 facilities in 38 states earned high-performing status from U.S. News & World Report.

“The Best Hospitals for Maternity” looked at data for 2019 and covered uncomplicated but not high-risk pregnancies. “All families deserve to be informed on how hospitals perform on key indicators of quality, which is why U.S. News has compiled and published a trove of maternal health data from hospitals across the country,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at U.S. News, said in a written statement.

The 237 best performers were selected from an overall pool of 571 hospitals that participated in the analysis, representing every state except Alaska, Arkansas, and Vermont, U.S. News said, noting that about 2,700 hospitals in the United States offer maternity services.

California has the highest number of best performers, 33, followed by Illinois and New Jersey, both with 15. Colorado is home to 14 best-performing hospitals, Michigan has 12, and North Carolina and Wisconsin each have 12. “Hospitals that performed well had fewer newborn complications, fewer early deliveries and fewer C-sections, compared to other hospitals across the nation,” Mr. Harder said.

The composite score constructed by U.S. News involved five quality measures: nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex cesarean delivery rates; early elective delivery rates; unexpected newborn complications rates; routine vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery availability; and exclusive breast milk–feeding rates. The composite score averaged 80.0 for high performers and 54.9 for the other participating hospitals, U.S. News reported.

Averages for the high performers on each of the five measures looked like this:
 

• C-section rate, 21.1%.
• Early elective delivery rate, 1.3%.
• Overall unexpected newborn complication rates, 2.38%
• Exclusive breast milk–feeding rate, 58.6%.
• VBAC availability, 92.4%.

Data for four measures were collected from the hospitals via online survey over a 4-month window that began on April 29, 2021. Rates of early elective delivery came from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Care Compare.

[email protected]

In a new evaluation of hospital maternity services, 237 facilities in 38 states earned high-performing status from U.S. News & World Report.

“The Best Hospitals for Maternity” looked at data for 2019 and covered uncomplicated but not high-risk pregnancies. “All families deserve to be informed on how hospitals perform on key indicators of quality, which is why U.S. News has compiled and published a trove of maternal health data from hospitals across the country,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at U.S. News, said in a written statement.

The 237 best performers were selected from an overall pool of 571 hospitals that participated in the analysis, representing every state except Alaska, Arkansas, and Vermont, U.S. News said, noting that about 2,700 hospitals in the United States offer maternity services.

California has the highest number of best performers, 33, followed by Illinois and New Jersey, both with 15. Colorado is home to 14 best-performing hospitals, Michigan has 12, and North Carolina and Wisconsin each have 12. “Hospitals that performed well had fewer newborn complications, fewer early deliveries and fewer C-sections, compared to other hospitals across the nation,” Mr. Harder said.

The composite score constructed by U.S. News involved five quality measures: nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex cesarean delivery rates; early elective delivery rates; unexpected newborn complications rates; routine vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery availability; and exclusive breast milk–feeding rates. The composite score averaged 80.0 for high performers and 54.9 for the other participating hospitals, U.S. News reported.

Averages for the high performers on each of the five measures looked like this:
 

• C-section rate, 21.1%.
• Early elective delivery rate, 1.3%.
• Overall unexpected newborn complication rates, 2.38%
• Exclusive breast milk–feeding rate, 58.6%.
• VBAC availability, 92.4%.

Data for four measures were collected from the hospitals via online survey over a 4-month window that began on April 29, 2021. Rates of early elective delivery came from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Care Compare.

[email protected]

Both sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease were significantly associated with an increased risk of stillbirth, based on data from more than 50,000 women.

Pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at increased risk of complications, including stillbirth, but many women with the disease in the United States lack access to specialty care, Silvia P. Canelón, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote. Sickle cell trait (SCT), defined as one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin gene, is not considered a disease state because many carriers are asymptomatic, and therefore even less likely to be assessed for potential complications. “However, it is possible for people with SCT to experience sickling of red blood cells under severe hypoxia, dehydration, and hyperthermia. This condition can lead to severe medical complications for sickle cell carriers, including fetal loss, splenic infarction, exercise-related sudden death, and others,” they noted.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 63,334 deliveries in 50,560 women between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 15, 2017, at four quaternary academic medical centers in Pennsylvania. Of these, 1,904 had SCT but not SCD, and 164 had SCD. The mean age of the women was 29.5 years, and approximately 56% were single at the time of delivery. A majority (87%) of the study population was Rhesus-factor positive, 47.0% were Black or African American, 33.7% were White, and 45.2% had ABO blood type O.

Risk factors for stillbirth used in the analysis included SCD, numbers of pain crises and blood transfusions before delivery, delivery episode (to represent parity), history of cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, age, marital status, race and ethnicity, ABO blood type, Rhesus factor, and year of delivery.

Overall, the prevalence of stillbirth in women with SCT was 1.1%, compared with 0.8% in the general study population, and was significantly associated with increased risk of stillbirth after controlling for multiple risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio was 8.94 for stillbirth risk in women with SCT, compared with women without SCT (P = .045), although the risk was greater among women with SCD, compared with those without SCD (aOR, 26.40).

“In addition, the stratified analysis found Black or African American patients with SCD to be at higher risk of stillbirth, compared with Black or African American patients without SCD (aOR, 3.59),” but no significant association was noted between stillbirth and SCT, the researchers wrote. Stillbirth rates were 1.1% in Black or African American women overall, 2.7% in those with SCD, and 1.0% in those with SCT. Overall, multiple gestation was associated with an increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 4.68), while a history of cesarean delivery and being married at the time of delivery were associated with decreased risk (aOR, 0.44 and 0.72, respectively).

The lack of association between stillbirth and SCT in Black or African American patients supports some previous research, but contradicts other studies, the researchers wrote. “Ultimately, it may be impossible to disentangle the risks due to the disease and those due to disparities associated with the disease that have resulted from longstanding inequity and stigma,” they said. The findings also suggest that biological mechanisms of SCT may contribute to severe clinical complications, and therefore “invite a more critical examination of the assumption that SCT is not a disease state.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of assessment of SCT independent of other comorbidities, such as hypertension, preeclampsia, diabetes, and obesity, and by the use of billing codes that could misclassify patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support some findings from previous studies of the potential health complications for pregnant SCT patients. The large study population highlights the need to identify women’s SCT status during obstetric care, and to provide both pregnancy guidance for SCT patients and systemic support of comprehensive care for SCD and SCT patients, they concluded.

Disparities may drive stillbirth in sickle cell trait women

“There is a paucity of research evaluating sickle cell trait and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Prior studies evaluating the risk of stillbirth have yielded mixed results, and an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait has not been established. This study is unique in that it attempts to address how racial inequities and health disparities may contribute to risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait.”

Although the study findings suggest an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait, an analysis stratified for Black or African American patients showed no association, Dr. Krishna said. “The prevalence of stillbirth was noted to be 1% among Black or African American patients with sickle cell trait compared to the prevalence of stillbirth of 1.1% among Black or African American women with no sickle cell trait or disease. Although, sickle cell trait or sickle cell disease can be found in any racial or ethnic group, it disproportionately affects Black or African Americans, with a sickle cell trait carrier rate of approximately 1 in 10. The mixed findings in this study amongst racial/ethnic groups further suggest that there is more research needed before an association between stillbirth and sickle cell trait can be supported.”

As for clinical implications, “it is well established that for women with sickle cell trait there is an increased risk of urinary tract infections in pregnancy,” said Dr. Krishna. “Women with sickle cell trait should have a urine culture performed at their first prenatal visit and each trimester. At this time, studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait have yielded conflicting results, and current consensus is that women with sickle cell trait are not at increased risk. In comparison, women with sickle cell disease are at increased risk for stillbirth and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women with sickle cell disease should be followed closely during pregnancy and fetal surveillance implemented at 32 weeks, if not sooner, to reduce risk of stillbirth.

“Prior studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait consist of retrospective cohorts with small study populations,” Dr. Krishna added. Notably, the current study was limited by the inability to adjust for comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, that are not only associated with an increased risk for stillbirth, but also disproportionately common among Black women.

“More studies are needed evaluating the relationship between these comorbidities as well as studies specifically evaluating how race affects care and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krisha emphasized.

The study was funded by the University of Pennsylvania department of biostatistics, epidemiology, and informatics. Lead author Dr. Canelón disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Both sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease were significantly associated with an increased risk of stillbirth, based on data from more than 50,000 women.

Pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at increased risk of complications, including stillbirth, but many women with the disease in the United States lack access to specialty care, Silvia P. Canelón, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote. Sickle cell trait (SCT), defined as one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin gene, is not considered a disease state because many carriers are asymptomatic, and therefore even less likely to be assessed for potential complications. “However, it is possible for people with SCT to experience sickling of red blood cells under severe hypoxia, dehydration, and hyperthermia. This condition can lead to severe medical complications for sickle cell carriers, including fetal loss, splenic infarction, exercise-related sudden death, and others,” they noted.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 63,334 deliveries in 50,560 women between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 15, 2017, at four quaternary academic medical centers in Pennsylvania. Of these, 1,904 had SCT but not SCD, and 164 had SCD. The mean age of the women was 29.5 years, and approximately 56% were single at the time of delivery. A majority (87%) of the study population was Rhesus-factor positive, 47.0% were Black or African American, 33.7% were White, and 45.2% had ABO blood type O.

Risk factors for stillbirth used in the analysis included SCD, numbers of pain crises and blood transfusions before delivery, delivery episode (to represent parity), history of cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, age, marital status, race and ethnicity, ABO blood type, Rhesus factor, and year of delivery.

Overall, the prevalence of stillbirth in women with SCT was 1.1%, compared with 0.8% in the general study population, and was significantly associated with increased risk of stillbirth after controlling for multiple risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio was 8.94 for stillbirth risk in women with SCT, compared with women without SCT (P = .045), although the risk was greater among women with SCD, compared with those without SCD (aOR, 26.40).

“In addition, the stratified analysis found Black or African American patients with SCD to be at higher risk of stillbirth, compared with Black or African American patients without SCD (aOR, 3.59),” but no significant association was noted between stillbirth and SCT, the researchers wrote. Stillbirth rates were 1.1% in Black or African American women overall, 2.7% in those with SCD, and 1.0% in those with SCT. Overall, multiple gestation was associated with an increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 4.68), while a history of cesarean delivery and being married at the time of delivery were associated with decreased risk (aOR, 0.44 and 0.72, respectively).

The lack of association between stillbirth and SCT in Black or African American patients supports some previous research, but contradicts other studies, the researchers wrote. “Ultimately, it may be impossible to disentangle the risks due to the disease and those due to disparities associated with the disease that have resulted from longstanding inequity and stigma,” they said. The findings also suggest that biological mechanisms of SCT may contribute to severe clinical complications, and therefore “invite a more critical examination of the assumption that SCT is not a disease state.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of assessment of SCT independent of other comorbidities, such as hypertension, preeclampsia, diabetes, and obesity, and by the use of billing codes that could misclassify patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support some findings from previous studies of the potential health complications for pregnant SCT patients. The large study population highlights the need to identify women’s SCT status during obstetric care, and to provide both pregnancy guidance for SCT patients and systemic support of comprehensive care for SCD and SCT patients, they concluded.

Disparities may drive stillbirth in sickle cell trait women

“There is a paucity of research evaluating sickle cell trait and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Prior studies evaluating the risk of stillbirth have yielded mixed results, and an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait has not been established. This study is unique in that it attempts to address how racial inequities and health disparities may contribute to risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait.”

Although the study findings suggest an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait, an analysis stratified for Black or African American patients showed no association, Dr. Krishna said. “The prevalence of stillbirth was noted to be 1% among Black or African American patients with sickle cell trait compared to the prevalence of stillbirth of 1.1% among Black or African American women with no sickle cell trait or disease. Although, sickle cell trait or sickle cell disease can be found in any racial or ethnic group, it disproportionately affects Black or African Americans, with a sickle cell trait carrier rate of approximately 1 in 10. The mixed findings in this study amongst racial/ethnic groups further suggest that there is more research needed before an association between stillbirth and sickle cell trait can be supported.”

As for clinical implications, “it is well established that for women with sickle cell trait there is an increased risk of urinary tract infections in pregnancy,” said Dr. Krishna. “Women with sickle cell trait should have a urine culture performed at their first prenatal visit and each trimester. At this time, studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait have yielded conflicting results, and current consensus is that women with sickle cell trait are not at increased risk. In comparison, women with sickle cell disease are at increased risk for stillbirth and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women with sickle cell disease should be followed closely during pregnancy and fetal surveillance implemented at 32 weeks, if not sooner, to reduce risk of stillbirth.

“Prior studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait consist of retrospective cohorts with small study populations,” Dr. Krishna added. Notably, the current study was limited by the inability to adjust for comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, that are not only associated with an increased risk for stillbirth, but also disproportionately common among Black women.

“More studies are needed evaluating the relationship between these comorbidities as well as studies specifically evaluating how race affects care and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krisha emphasized.

The study was funded by the University of Pennsylvania department of biostatistics, epidemiology, and informatics. Lead author Dr. Canelón disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Both sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease were significantly associated with an increased risk of stillbirth, based on data from more than 50,000 women.

Pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at increased risk of complications, including stillbirth, but many women with the disease in the United States lack access to specialty care, Silvia P. Canelón, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote. Sickle cell trait (SCT), defined as one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin gene, is not considered a disease state because many carriers are asymptomatic, and therefore even less likely to be assessed for potential complications. “However, it is possible for people with SCT to experience sickling of red blood cells under severe hypoxia, dehydration, and hyperthermia. This condition can lead to severe medical complications for sickle cell carriers, including fetal loss, splenic infarction, exercise-related sudden death, and others,” they noted.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 63,334 deliveries in 50,560 women between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 15, 2017, at four quaternary academic medical centers in Pennsylvania. Of these, 1,904 had SCT but not SCD, and 164 had SCD. The mean age of the women was 29.5 years, and approximately 56% were single at the time of delivery. A majority (87%) of the study population was Rhesus-factor positive, 47.0% were Black or African American, 33.7% were White, and 45.2% had ABO blood type O.

Risk factors for stillbirth used in the analysis included SCD, numbers of pain crises and blood transfusions before delivery, delivery episode (to represent parity), history of cesarean delivery, multiple gestation, age, marital status, race and ethnicity, ABO blood type, Rhesus factor, and year of delivery.

Overall, the prevalence of stillbirth in women with SCT was 1.1%, compared with 0.8% in the general study population, and was significantly associated with increased risk of stillbirth after controlling for multiple risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio was 8.94 for stillbirth risk in women with SCT, compared with women without SCT (P = .045), although the risk was greater among women with SCD, compared with those without SCD (aOR, 26.40).

“In addition, the stratified analysis found Black or African American patients with SCD to be at higher risk of stillbirth, compared with Black or African American patients without SCD (aOR, 3.59),” but no significant association was noted between stillbirth and SCT, the researchers wrote. Stillbirth rates were 1.1% in Black or African American women overall, 2.7% in those with SCD, and 1.0% in those with SCT. Overall, multiple gestation was associated with an increased risk of stillbirth (aOR, 4.68), while a history of cesarean delivery and being married at the time of delivery were associated with decreased risk (aOR, 0.44 and 0.72, respectively).

The lack of association between stillbirth and SCT in Black or African American patients supports some previous research, but contradicts other studies, the researchers wrote. “Ultimately, it may be impossible to disentangle the risks due to the disease and those due to disparities associated with the disease that have resulted from longstanding inequity and stigma,” they said. The findings also suggest that biological mechanisms of SCT may contribute to severe clinical complications, and therefore “invite a more critical examination of the assumption that SCT is not a disease state.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of assessment of SCT independent of other comorbidities, such as hypertension, preeclampsia, diabetes, and obesity, and by the use of billing codes that could misclassify patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support some findings from previous studies of the potential health complications for pregnant SCT patients. The large study population highlights the need to identify women’s SCT status during obstetric care, and to provide both pregnancy guidance for SCT patients and systemic support of comprehensive care for SCD and SCT patients, they concluded.

Disparities may drive stillbirth in sickle cell trait women

“There is a paucity of research evaluating sickle cell trait and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Prior studies evaluating the risk of stillbirth have yielded mixed results, and an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait has not been established. This study is unique in that it attempts to address how racial inequities and health disparities may contribute to risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait.”

Although the study findings suggest an increased risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait, an analysis stratified for Black or African American patients showed no association, Dr. Krishna said. “The prevalence of stillbirth was noted to be 1% among Black or African American patients with sickle cell trait compared to the prevalence of stillbirth of 1.1% among Black or African American women with no sickle cell trait or disease. Although, sickle cell trait or sickle cell disease can be found in any racial or ethnic group, it disproportionately affects Black or African Americans, with a sickle cell trait carrier rate of approximately 1 in 10. The mixed findings in this study amongst racial/ethnic groups further suggest that there is more research needed before an association between stillbirth and sickle cell trait can be supported.”

As for clinical implications, “it is well established that for women with sickle cell trait there is an increased risk of urinary tract infections in pregnancy,” said Dr. Krishna. “Women with sickle cell trait should have a urine culture performed at their first prenatal visit and each trimester. At this time, studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait have yielded conflicting results, and current consensus is that women with sickle cell trait are not at increased risk. In comparison, women with sickle cell disease are at increased risk for stillbirth and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women with sickle cell disease should be followed closely during pregnancy and fetal surveillance implemented at 32 weeks, if not sooner, to reduce risk of stillbirth.

“Prior studies evaluating risk of stillbirth in women with sickle cell trait consist of retrospective cohorts with small study populations,” Dr. Krishna added. Notably, the current study was limited by the inability to adjust for comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, that are not only associated with an increased risk for stillbirth, but also disproportionately common among Black women.

“More studies are needed evaluating the relationship between these comorbidities as well as studies specifically evaluating how race affects care and pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Krisha emphasized.

The study was funded by the University of Pennsylvania department of biostatistics, epidemiology, and informatics. Lead author Dr. Canelón disclosed grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Municipal budget allocations can affect severe maternal morbidity (SMM) rates, a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Network Open reported.

Led by Felix M. Muchomba, PhD, an assistant professor at Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Brunswick, N.J., the study found that local expenditures on fire and ambulance, transportation, health, housing, and libraries were negatively associated with SMM. Specifically, annual per-capita expenditures of $1,000 and higher in these categories were associated with a 35.4%-67.3% lower risk of SMM: odds ratios, 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.72) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.91).

In contrast, expenditures on police were positively associated with SMM: OR, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28).

In the first study of environmental services spending and SMM done at the municipal level – others have focused on state and county funding – Dr. Muchomba’s group analyzed 2008-2018 birth files linked to maternal hospital discharge records and U.S. Census municipal expenditures data.

The study’s cohort comprised 1,001,410 mothers giving birth in New Jersey hospitals with a mean age of 29.8 years. Of these,10.9 % were Asian, 14.8% were Black, 28.0% were Hispanic, and 44.7% were White.

Per-capita municipal expenditures were reviewed for a broad range of city services: education, public health, fire and ambulance, parks, recreation, natural resources, housing, community development, public welfare; police; transportation, and libraries. “Each year municipalities spend about $600 billion nationwide on local services, investing far more than counties do,” Dr. Muchomba said.

Among developed nations, the United States has a rate of high maternal morbidity, a determinant of maternal mortality, and New Jersey has one of the highest rates in the country, although, paradoxically, it has one of the lowest state poverty rates and one of the highest state income levels, he added, said explaining the impetus for the study.

Previous research has found that state and local investment in non–health specific services can reduce infant mortality rates (IMR). Last year, for example, a national study of 2000-2016 data led by Neal D. Goldstein, PhD, MRI, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University in Philadelphia, reported that a $0.30 per-person increase in environmental spending was associated with a decrease of 0.03 deaths per 1,000 live births, and a $0.73 per-person increase in social services spending was associated with a decrease of 0.02 deaths per 1,000 live births. “IMR is reflective of, and amenable to broad social, economic, and health care delivery contexts within a society. State and local governments, via increased social and environmental expenditures, have the potential to reduce, albeit not eliminate, IMR disparities,” Dr. Goldstein’s group wrote in Pediatrics.

According to Aimee J. Palumbo, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the department of epidemiology & biostatistics in the College of Public Health at Temple University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, the current study’s results are broadly consistent with those of the Goldstein study, of which she is a coauthor, in that it shows spending on public welfare is associated with better outcomes following birth.

“This analysis, however, is done at the municipality level, which allows it to evaluate variations in spending that occur at more local levels, rather than the state level like ours,” she said in an interview. “The researchers are also able to control for individual-level factors,” which is good as it is really suggestive of the impact that spending has on outcomes after controlling for some individual characteristics.”

Both studies speak to the importance of exploring funding for social services and specific programs that affect health, Dr. Palumbo added.

Services that affect nonmedical determinants of health broadly affect how people live their daily lives, Dr. Muchomba said – where they live, how they get to work and to medical appointments, where they shop, how they engage in recreation.

“Housing is very important for mothers since it provides a safe space to shelter during pregnancy and during recovery from childbirth. It’s a safe place to store medications and to prepare healthy food,” he continued. “But much of the housing in New Jersey is very expensive, and some mothers may have to decide between paying the rent and buying healthy food.”

In other benefits, local services spending provides transportation to jobs and health care, bus shelters, effective waste management, viable sidewalks, safe crosswalks, and public exercise venues that help to reduce obesity.

The category that Dr. Muchomba is most often asked about is libraries. “Why libraries? Our hypothesis is that libraries provide some low-income people with their only access to computers and the Internet. They’re a major resource for information and a proxy for the delivery of other services,” he said. In addition, many libraries offer English as a second language classes, which may increase health literacy among immigrants.

A major objective of the 2020 Maternal Health Action Plan of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is to better target resources by identifying problem spots for maternal morbidity and mortality. “Our findings strongly suggest that surveillance at the municipal level, a level rarely considered in studies of health outcomes, would be important for success in such efforts,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Muchomba believes doctors can have a role to play in targeting of spending for local services that can reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. “Many physicians are engaged in community health outreach efforts. As respected people in the community, they need to be aware of these other determinants of health that may be driving maternal morbidity rates in their communities.”

This research was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Service Administration and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey. Dr. Muchomba reported a grant from Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside of the submitted work. Dr. Palumbo had no potential competing interests to disclose.

Municipal budget allocations can affect severe maternal morbidity (SMM) rates, a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Network Open reported.

Led by Felix M. Muchomba, PhD, an assistant professor at Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Brunswick, N.J., the study found that local expenditures on fire and ambulance, transportation, health, housing, and libraries were negatively associated with SMM. Specifically, annual per-capita expenditures of $1,000 and higher in these categories were associated with a 35.4%-67.3% lower risk of SMM: odds ratios, 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.72) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.91).

In contrast, expenditures on police were positively associated with SMM: OR, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28).

In the first study of environmental services spending and SMM done at the municipal level – others have focused on state and county funding – Dr. Muchomba’s group analyzed 2008-2018 birth files linked to maternal hospital discharge records and U.S. Census municipal expenditures data.

The study’s cohort comprised 1,001,410 mothers giving birth in New Jersey hospitals with a mean age of 29.8 years. Of these,10.9 % were Asian, 14.8% were Black, 28.0% were Hispanic, and 44.7% were White.

Per-capita municipal expenditures were reviewed for a broad range of city services: education, public health, fire and ambulance, parks, recreation, natural resources, housing, community development, public welfare; police; transportation, and libraries. “Each year municipalities spend about $600 billion nationwide on local services, investing far more than counties do,” Dr. Muchomba said.

Among developed nations, the United States has a rate of high maternal morbidity, a determinant of maternal mortality, and New Jersey has one of the highest rates in the country, although, paradoxically, it has one of the lowest state poverty rates and one of the highest state income levels, he added, said explaining the impetus for the study.

Previous research has found that state and local investment in non–health specific services can reduce infant mortality rates (IMR). Last year, for example, a national study of 2000-2016 data led by Neal D. Goldstein, PhD, MRI, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University in Philadelphia, reported that a $0.30 per-person increase in environmental spending was associated with a decrease of 0.03 deaths per 1,000 live births, and a $0.73 per-person increase in social services spending was associated with a decrease of 0.02 deaths per 1,000 live births. “IMR is reflective of, and amenable to broad social, economic, and health care delivery contexts within a society. State and local governments, via increased social and environmental expenditures, have the potential to reduce, albeit not eliminate, IMR disparities,” Dr. Goldstein’s group wrote in Pediatrics.

According to Aimee J. Palumbo, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the department of epidemiology & biostatistics in the College of Public Health at Temple University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, the current study’s results are broadly consistent with those of the Goldstein study, of which she is a coauthor, in that it shows spending on public welfare is associated with better outcomes following birth.

“This analysis, however, is done at the municipality level, which allows it to evaluate variations in spending that occur at more local levels, rather than the state level like ours,” she said in an interview. “The researchers are also able to control for individual-level factors,” which is good as it is really suggestive of the impact that spending has on outcomes after controlling for some individual characteristics.”

Both studies speak to the importance of exploring funding for social services and specific programs that affect health, Dr. Palumbo added.

Services that affect nonmedical determinants of health broadly affect how people live their daily lives, Dr. Muchomba said – where they live, how they get to work and to medical appointments, where they shop, how they engage in recreation.

“Housing is very important for mothers since it provides a safe space to shelter during pregnancy and during recovery from childbirth. It’s a safe place to store medications and to prepare healthy food,” he continued. “But much of the housing in New Jersey is very expensive, and some mothers may have to decide between paying the rent and buying healthy food.”

In other benefits, local services spending provides transportation to jobs and health care, bus shelters, effective waste management, viable sidewalks, safe crosswalks, and public exercise venues that help to reduce obesity.

The category that Dr. Muchomba is most often asked about is libraries. “Why libraries? Our hypothesis is that libraries provide some low-income people with their only access to computers and the Internet. They’re a major resource for information and a proxy for the delivery of other services,” he said. In addition, many libraries offer English as a second language classes, which may increase health literacy among immigrants.

A major objective of the 2020 Maternal Health Action Plan of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is to better target resources by identifying problem spots for maternal morbidity and mortality. “Our findings strongly suggest that surveillance at the municipal level, a level rarely considered in studies of health outcomes, would be important for success in such efforts,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Muchomba believes doctors can have a role to play in targeting of spending for local services that can reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. “Many physicians are engaged in community health outreach efforts. As respected people in the community, they need to be aware of these other determinants of health that may be driving maternal morbidity rates in their communities.”

This research was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Service Administration and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey. Dr. Muchomba reported a grant from Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside of the submitted work. Dr. Palumbo had no potential competing interests to disclose.

Municipal budget allocations can affect severe maternal morbidity (SMM) rates, a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Network Open reported.

Led by Felix M. Muchomba, PhD, an assistant professor at Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Brunswick, N.J., the study found that local expenditures on fire and ambulance, transportation, health, housing, and libraries were negatively associated with SMM. Specifically, annual per-capita expenditures of $1,000 and higher in these categories were associated with a 35.4%-67.3% lower risk of SMM: odds ratios, 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.72) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.91).

In contrast, expenditures on police were positively associated with SMM: OR, 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28).

In the first study of environmental services spending and SMM done at the municipal level – others have focused on state and county funding – Dr. Muchomba’s group analyzed 2008-2018 birth files linked to maternal hospital discharge records and U.S. Census municipal expenditures data.

The study’s cohort comprised 1,001,410 mothers giving birth in New Jersey hospitals with a mean age of 29.8 years. Of these,10.9 % were Asian, 14.8% were Black, 28.0% were Hispanic, and 44.7% were White.

Per-capita municipal expenditures were reviewed for a broad range of city services: education, public health, fire and ambulance, parks, recreation, natural resources, housing, community development, public welfare; police; transportation, and libraries. “Each year municipalities spend about $600 billion nationwide on local services, investing far more than counties do,” Dr. Muchomba said.

Among developed nations, the United States has a rate of high maternal morbidity, a determinant of maternal mortality, and New Jersey has one of the highest rates in the country, although, paradoxically, it has one of the lowest state poverty rates and one of the highest state income levels, he added, said explaining the impetus for the study.

Previous research has found that state and local investment in non–health specific services can reduce infant mortality rates (IMR). Last year, for example, a national study of 2000-2016 data led by Neal D. Goldstein, PhD, MRI, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University in Philadelphia, reported that a $0.30 per-person increase in environmental spending was associated with a decrease of 0.03 deaths per 1,000 live births, and a $0.73 per-person increase in social services spending was associated with a decrease of 0.02 deaths per 1,000 live births. “IMR is reflective of, and amenable to broad social, economic, and health care delivery contexts within a society. State and local governments, via increased social and environmental expenditures, have the potential to reduce, albeit not eliminate, IMR disparities,” Dr. Goldstein’s group wrote in Pediatrics.

According to Aimee J. Palumbo, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in the department of epidemiology & biostatistics in the College of Public Health at Temple University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, the current study’s results are broadly consistent with those of the Goldstein study, of which she is a coauthor, in that it shows spending on public welfare is associated with better outcomes following birth.

“This analysis, however, is done at the municipality level, which allows it to evaluate variations in spending that occur at more local levels, rather than the state level like ours,” she said in an interview. “The researchers are also able to control for individual-level factors,” which is good as it is really suggestive of the impact that spending has on outcomes after controlling for some individual characteristics.”

Both studies speak to the importance of exploring funding for social services and specific programs that affect health, Dr. Palumbo added.

Services that affect nonmedical determinants of health broadly affect how people live their daily lives, Dr. Muchomba said – where they live, how they get to work and to medical appointments, where they shop, how they engage in recreation.

“Housing is very important for mothers since it provides a safe space to shelter during pregnancy and during recovery from childbirth. It’s a safe place to store medications and to prepare healthy food,” he continued. “But much of the housing in New Jersey is very expensive, and some mothers may have to decide between paying the rent and buying healthy food.”

In other benefits, local services spending provides transportation to jobs and health care, bus shelters, effective waste management, viable sidewalks, safe crosswalks, and public exercise venues that help to reduce obesity.

The category that Dr. Muchomba is most often asked about is libraries. “Why libraries? Our hypothesis is that libraries provide some low-income people with their only access to computers and the Internet. They’re a major resource for information and a proxy for the delivery of other services,” he said. In addition, many libraries offer English as a second language classes, which may increase health literacy among immigrants.

A major objective of the 2020 Maternal Health Action Plan of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is to better target resources by identifying problem spots for maternal morbidity and mortality. “Our findings strongly suggest that surveillance at the municipal level, a level rarely considered in studies of health outcomes, would be important for success in such efforts,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Muchomba believes doctors can have a role to play in targeting of spending for local services that can reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. “Many physicians are engaged in community health outreach efforts. As respected people in the community, they need to be aware of these other determinants of health that may be driving maternal morbidity rates in their communities.”

This research was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Service Administration and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey. Dr. Muchomba reported a grant from Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside of the submitted work. Dr. Palumbo had no potential competing interests to disclose.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.

Mothers who use cannabis during pregnancy risk disrupting immune gene networks in the placenta and potentially increasing the risk of anxiety and hyperactivity in their children.

These findings emerged from a study led by Yasmin Hurd, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Yoko Nomura, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Queen’s College, City University of New York, that was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis assessed the effects of gestational maternal cannabis use on psychosocial and physiological measures in young children as well as its potentially immunomodulatory effect on the in utero environment as reflected in the placental transcriptome.

Participants were drawn from a larger cohort in a study launched in 2012; the investigators evaluated offspring aged 3-6 years for hair hormone levels, neurobehavioral traits on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children survey, and heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during auditory startle.

The cohort consisted of 322 mother-child dyads and children with prenatal exposure to cannabis were compared with those having no exposure. The cohort consisted of 251 non–cannabis-using mothers and 71 cannabis-using mothers, with mean maternal ages in the two groups of 28.46 years and 25.91 years, respectively, The mothers gave birth at Mount Sinai and they and their children were assessed annually at affiliated medical centers in Mount Sinai’s catchment area.

For a subset of children with behavioral assessments, placental specimens collected at birth were processed for RNA sequencing.

Among the findings:

• Maternal cannabis use was associated with reduced maternal and paternal age, more single-mother pregnancies, state anxiety, trait anxiety, depression, cigarette smoking, and African American race.
• Hair hormone analysis revealed increased cortisol levels in the children of cannabis-using mothers, and was associated with greater anxiety, aggression, and hyperactivity.
• Affected children showed a reduction in the high-frequency component of HRV at baseline, reflecting reduced vagal tone.
• In the placenta, there was reduced expression of many genes involved in immune system function. These included genes for type I interferon, neutrophil, and cytokine-signaling pathways.

Several of these genes organized into coexpression networks that correlated with child anxiety and hyperactivity.

The principal active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), targets the endocannabinoid system in placental tissue and the developing brain, the authors noted. Exposure during pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes from fetal growth restriction to low birth weight and preterm birth.

“There are cannabinoid receptors on immune cells, and it is known that cannabinoids can alter immune function, which is important for maintaining maternal tolerance and protecting the fetus,” Dr. Hurd said. “It’s not surprising that something that affects the immune cells can have an impact on the developing fetus.”

“Overall, our findings reveal a relationship between [maternal cannabis use] and immune response gene networks in the placenta as a potential mediator of risk for anxiety-related problems in early childhood,” Dr. Hurd and colleagues wrote, adding that the results have significant implications for defining mental health issues in the children gestated by cannabis-smoking mothers.

Their results align with previous research indicating a greater risk for psychiatric illness in children with prenatal cannabis exposure from maternal use.

“While data are pretty limited in this realm, there are other studies that demonstrate a relationship between early child developmental and behavioral measures and cannabis use during pregnancy,” Camille Hoffman, MD, MSc, a high-risk obstetrics specialist and an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “Our research group found children exposed to cannabis in utero at 10 weeks’ gestation and beyond were less interactive and more withdrawn than children who were not exposed.”

And THC remains in maternal breast milk even 6 weeks after usage stops.

The long-term effects of prenatal cannabis exposure remain to be determined and it is unknown whether the effects of gestational THC might attenuate as a child grows older. “We use early childhood measures in research as a proxy for the later development of diagnosed mental health conditions or behavioral problems,” Dr. Hoffman explained. “We know when we do this that not every child with an abnormal score early will go on to develop an actual condition. Fortunately, or unfortunately, other factors and exposures during childhood can change the trajectory for the better or worse.”

According to Dr. Hurd, child development is a dynamic process and epigenetic events in utero need not be deterministic. “The important thing is to identify children at risk early and to be able to go in and try to improve the environment they’re being raised in – not in terms of impoverishment but in terms of positive nurturing and giving the mother and family support.”

At the prenatal level, what’s the best advice for cannabis-using mothers-to-be? “If a woman doesn’t know she’s pregnant and has been using cannabis, taking extra choline for the remainder of the pregnancy can help buffer the potential negative impact of the cannabis exposure,” Dr. Hoffman said. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association recommend a dose of 550 mg daily. “The same is true for alcohol, which we know is also very bad for fetal brain development. This is not to say go ahead and use these substances and just take choline. The choline is more to try and salvage damage to the fetal brain that may have already occurred.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Hoffman disclosed no conflicts of interest with respect to her comments.

Giving birth may be so arduous for humans in part because the pelvis is optimized for standing upright, a new study suggests.

The study, published in BMC Biology , relies on computer-based simulations of how bone, soft tissue, and skin work in concert as we move. The same approach has been used to identify key elements of a perfect fastball in baseball and the best marathon gait.

In the new analysis, scientists used digital images to examine how bones and muscles around the pelvis move during daily activities and giving birth. Because the shape of the human pelvic canal doesn’t make for a fast or easy birth, the investigators wondered if its dimensions were linked to some other human feature.

In apes, this canal is a simple oval throughout, so labor and delivery might be easier for these species, the scientists note. But the oval in the human canal changes direction through the pelvis, requiring babies to rotate during delivery so that the head and shoulders can pass through.

Computer modeling with digital images suggested that the stress and pressure of being upright on two legs might give the pelvic canal its twist. When the researchers used a consistently oriented oval, like the one that apes have, the pelvis tilted and destabilized the spine, making it harder to balance on two legs.

Our balance might be even better with a widened outlet at the lower portion of the birth canal, the investigators found. But a wider outlet could make childbirth injuries more likely because it would require an even harder twist of the head and shoulders in the canal. The authors say that the shape of the pelvic canal could represent an “evolutionary compromise” between these competing factors.

These findings rely on computer models using digital images and don’t precisely recreate either the evolutionary or birthing process. But they do offer another feature to consider when answering the question of why human labor and delivery are so difficult, compared with our closest living cousins.

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

Giving birth may be so arduous for humans in part because the pelvis is optimized for standing upright, a new study suggests.

The study, published in BMC Biology , relies on computer-based simulations of how bone, soft tissue, and skin work in concert as we move. The same approach has been used to identify key elements of a perfect fastball in baseball and the best marathon gait.

In the new analysis, scientists used digital images to examine how bones and muscles around the pelvis move during daily activities and giving birth. Because the shape of the human pelvic canal doesn’t make for a fast or easy birth, the investigators wondered if its dimensions were linked to some other human feature.

In apes, this canal is a simple oval throughout, so labor and delivery might be easier for these species, the scientists note. But the oval in the human canal changes direction through the pelvis, requiring babies to rotate during delivery so that the head and shoulders can pass through.

Computer modeling with digital images suggested that the stress and pressure of being upright on two legs might give the pelvic canal its twist. When the researchers used a consistently oriented oval, like the one that apes have, the pelvis tilted and destabilized the spine, making it harder to balance on two legs.

Our balance might be even better with a widened outlet at the lower portion of the birth canal, the investigators found. But a wider outlet could make childbirth injuries more likely because it would require an even harder twist of the head and shoulders in the canal. The authors say that the shape of the pelvic canal could represent an “evolutionary compromise” between these competing factors.

These findings rely on computer models using digital images and don’t precisely recreate either the evolutionary or birthing process. But they do offer another feature to consider when answering the question of why human labor and delivery are so difficult, compared with our closest living cousins.

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

Giving birth may be so arduous for humans in part because the pelvis is optimized for standing upright, a new study suggests.

The study, published in BMC Biology , relies on computer-based simulations of how bone, soft tissue, and skin work in concert as we move. The same approach has been used to identify key elements of a perfect fastball in baseball and the best marathon gait.

In the new analysis, scientists used digital images to examine how bones and muscles around the pelvis move during daily activities and giving birth. Because the shape of the human pelvic canal doesn’t make for a fast or easy birth, the investigators wondered if its dimensions were linked to some other human feature.

In apes, this canal is a simple oval throughout, so labor and delivery might be easier for these species, the scientists note. But the oval in the human canal changes direction through the pelvis, requiring babies to rotate during delivery so that the head and shoulders can pass through.

Computer modeling with digital images suggested that the stress and pressure of being upright on two legs might give the pelvic canal its twist. When the researchers used a consistently oriented oval, like the one that apes have, the pelvis tilted and destabilized the spine, making it harder to balance on two legs.

Our balance might be even better with a widened outlet at the lower portion of the birth canal, the investigators found. But a wider outlet could make childbirth injuries more likely because it would require an even harder twist of the head and shoulders in the canal. The authors say that the shape of the pelvic canal could represent an “evolutionary compromise” between these competing factors.

These findings rely on computer models using digital images and don’t precisely recreate either the evolutionary or birthing process. But they do offer another feature to consider when answering the question of why human labor and delivery are so difficult, compared with our closest living cousins.

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

Striae gravidarum (SG) – or pregnancy stretch marks – are a source of distress and embarrassment for many women, similar in that respect to acne, psoriasis, or eczema, according to a new study.

In the study of healthy pregnant women, “we found that SG can be associated with a host of negative reactions reflecting increased psychological and emotional distress,” reported Kaveri Karhade, MD, from the Berman Skin Institute, Los Altos, Calif., and coauthors from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Karhade was with the department of dermatology at the University of Michigan at the time the study was conducted.

“We suggest that health care providers should avoid thinking of SG as merely a cosmetic ‘nuisance,’ ” they wrote in an article published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. “Instead, it would be reasonable for providers to approach SG like other dermatologic concerns, and to consider asking patients whether SG cause emotional distress and whether prevention or treatment strategies should be attempted, even if not completely effective and potentially costly.”

The investigators did not evaluate treatments, but Frank Wang, MD, senior author of the study and professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Michigan Medicine, said in an interview that, “while they aren’t completely effective, some treatments can still help.” In addition, “recommending something also shows that you are listening to patients’ concerns – taking their concerns and skin lesions seriously,” he said.
 

Patient survey

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 116 healthy pregnant women with SG. Participants were asked about the emotional and psychological effects of the lesions and how SG affects quality of life. The survey was modeled on questions from the Dermatology Life Quality Index, which asks about the impact of skin disease on embarrassment/self-consciousness, clothing choice, leisure activities, and interpersonal problems. “Content of questions was also devised from direct discussion with pregnant women attending clinic appointments or participating in other research studies on SG at our institution, and discussion with expert colleagues in obstetrics and dermatology,” the authors explained.

The survey consisted of 35 questions concerning demographics, pregnancy characteristics, personal and family history of SG, specific physical concerns about SG, impact of SG on attitude toward pregnancy, willingness to prevent SG or seek treatment, severity of SG (self-evaluated), the impact of SG on specific life-quality facets, and the location of lesions.

About two-thirds of respondents were aged 25-36 years and were White; the remainder self-identified as Asian, Black, Native American, or “other.” Most women reported “average” weight gain during the current pregnancy. Almost half of participants (45%) reporting a history of SG from prior pregnancies, and 65% reported a family history of SG.

The abdomen was identified most frequently as the location of SG (75%), followed by the breasts (43%), hips (43%), thighs (36%), buttocks (19%), and other areas (6%).

For most women (75%), permanency of the lesions was their top concern. About half (51%) reported that they had attempted to prevent SG, mostly with topical creams or oils. Three-quarters (75%) expressed interest in seeking treatment for SG, but this percentage dropped significantly to 33% (P =.008) if that treatment would not be covered by insurance.

Regarding the psychological impact of SG, embarrassment/self-consciousness correlated most strongly with lesion severity, followed by general quality of life, impact on choice of attire, impact on self-image/self-esteem, feelings of anxiety/depression related to SG, alteration of social/leisure activities related to SG (all P < .0001), and creation of interpersonal problems related to SG (P = .02).

The investigators also found that an increase in the effect of SG on self-image/self-esteem was “moderately associated” with younger age (P < .001) and that increased embarrassment related to SG was “moderately associated” with weight gain during pregnancy (P < .001).

“For years, stretch marks have been a topic to avoid and something many women try to hide,” Timothy Johnson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan and coauthor of the study, said in a press release from the university. “Pregnant women talk about stretch marks with me every single week at clinic, and it’s time we break the stigma and start talking about them openly with all patients. ... By doing this study, we have an opportunity to normalize stretch marks in the context of all other dermatological conditions.”

Asked to comment on the findings, Tina Alster, MD, director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington, said her 3 decades of clinical experience support the authors’ findings. “Most patients who have striae are very self-conscious about them and report that their presence has negatively impacted their quality of life and self-confidence,” she said in an interview. “Of course, patients who come to my office are interested in having them treated, so my patient subset is skewed.”

She said treatment strategies that she discusses with patients include topical retinol/retinoids, which she said provide “low clinical response”; microneedling, which provides “marked” clinical response; and nonablative laser treatment, which provides “good” clinical response.

Considering particular patient characteristics, including budget, Dr. Alster said, “For those on a limited budget, I would propose daily use of a topical retinol, despite the low clinical effect. Many retinol-containing products are available over the counter. Prescription-strength retinoic acid tends to be pricey, often costing as much as in-office treatments.” Medical microneedling (not the cosmetic “roller” microneedling performed by aestheticians), she added, “gives the best results for the money and produces clinical results that mirror those achieved with lasers.”

Dr. Wang agreed that even recommending less expensive and less efficacious options such as over-the-counter creams can help alleviate patients’ concerns. “It shows that you are being holistic – not just caring for medical issues around pregnancy, but that you also take the emotional/psychological concerns of pregnant individuals and new parents seriously and that you recognize the impact of skin problems on quality of life. In the end, recommending something – in other words, providing some options, like creams or other therapies, for instance – is still, in my opinion, better than not recommending anything.”

Dr. Wang is involved with a study that is currently enrolling patients and that is evaluating the formation of early SG, which includes performing skin biopsies as soon as lesions appear.

The study had no funding. The study authors and Dr. Alster disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Striae gravidarum (SG) – or pregnancy stretch marks – are a source of distress and embarrassment for many women, similar in that respect to acne, psoriasis, or eczema, according to a new study.

In the study of healthy pregnant women, “we found that SG can be associated with a host of negative reactions reflecting increased psychological and emotional distress,” reported Kaveri Karhade, MD, from the Berman Skin Institute, Los Altos, Calif., and coauthors from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Karhade was with the department of dermatology at the University of Michigan at the time the study was conducted.

“We suggest that health care providers should avoid thinking of SG as merely a cosmetic ‘nuisance,’ ” they wrote in an article published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. “Instead, it would be reasonable for providers to approach SG like other dermatologic concerns, and to consider asking patients whether SG cause emotional distress and whether prevention or treatment strategies should be attempted, even if not completely effective and potentially costly.”

The investigators did not evaluate treatments, but Frank Wang, MD, senior author of the study and professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Michigan Medicine, said in an interview that, “while they aren’t completely effective, some treatments can still help.” In addition, “recommending something also shows that you are listening to patients’ concerns – taking their concerns and skin lesions seriously,” he said.
 

Patient survey

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 116 healthy pregnant women with SG. Participants were asked about the emotional and psychological effects of the lesions and how SG affects quality of life. The survey was modeled on questions from the Dermatology Life Quality Index, which asks about the impact of skin disease on embarrassment/self-consciousness, clothing choice, leisure activities, and interpersonal problems. “Content of questions was also devised from direct discussion with pregnant women attending clinic appointments or participating in other research studies on SG at our institution, and discussion with expert colleagues in obstetrics and dermatology,” the authors explained.

The survey consisted of 35 questions concerning demographics, pregnancy characteristics, personal and family history of SG, specific physical concerns about SG, impact of SG on attitude toward pregnancy, willingness to prevent SG or seek treatment, severity of SG (self-evaluated), the impact of SG on specific life-quality facets, and the location of lesions.

About two-thirds of respondents were aged 25-36 years and were White; the remainder self-identified as Asian, Black, Native American, or “other.” Most women reported “average” weight gain during the current pregnancy. Almost half of participants (45%) reporting a history of SG from prior pregnancies, and 65% reported a family history of SG.

The abdomen was identified most frequently as the location of SG (75%), followed by the breasts (43%), hips (43%), thighs (36%), buttocks (19%), and other areas (6%).

For most women (75%), permanency of the lesions was their top concern. About half (51%) reported that they had attempted to prevent SG, mostly with topical creams or oils. Three-quarters (75%) expressed interest in seeking treatment for SG, but this percentage dropped significantly to 33% (P =.008) if that treatment would not be covered by insurance.

Regarding the psychological impact of SG, embarrassment/self-consciousness correlated most strongly with lesion severity, followed by general quality of life, impact on choice of attire, impact on self-image/self-esteem, feelings of anxiety/depression related to SG, alteration of social/leisure activities related to SG (all P < .0001), and creation of interpersonal problems related to SG (P = .02).

The investigators also found that an increase in the effect of SG on self-image/self-esteem was “moderately associated” with younger age (P < .001) and that increased embarrassment related to SG was “moderately associated” with weight gain during pregnancy (P < .001).

“For years, stretch marks have been a topic to avoid and something many women try to hide,” Timothy Johnson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan and coauthor of the study, said in a press release from the university. “Pregnant women talk about stretch marks with me every single week at clinic, and it’s time we break the stigma and start talking about them openly with all patients. ... By doing this study, we have an opportunity to normalize stretch marks in the context of all other dermatological conditions.”

Asked to comment on the findings, Tina Alster, MD, director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington, said her 3 decades of clinical experience support the authors’ findings. “Most patients who have striae are very self-conscious about them and report that their presence has negatively impacted their quality of life and self-confidence,” she said in an interview. “Of course, patients who come to my office are interested in having them treated, so my patient subset is skewed.”

She said treatment strategies that she discusses with patients include topical retinol/retinoids, which she said provide “low clinical response”; microneedling, which provides “marked” clinical response; and nonablative laser treatment, which provides “good” clinical response.

Considering particular patient characteristics, including budget, Dr. Alster said, “For those on a limited budget, I would propose daily use of a topical retinol, despite the low clinical effect. Many retinol-containing products are available over the counter. Prescription-strength retinoic acid tends to be pricey, often costing as much as in-office treatments.” Medical microneedling (not the cosmetic “roller” microneedling performed by aestheticians), she added, “gives the best results for the money and produces clinical results that mirror those achieved with lasers.”

Dr. Wang agreed that even recommending less expensive and less efficacious options such as over-the-counter creams can help alleviate patients’ concerns. “It shows that you are being holistic – not just caring for medical issues around pregnancy, but that you also take the emotional/psychological concerns of pregnant individuals and new parents seriously and that you recognize the impact of skin problems on quality of life. In the end, recommending something – in other words, providing some options, like creams or other therapies, for instance – is still, in my opinion, better than not recommending anything.”

Dr. Wang is involved with a study that is currently enrolling patients and that is evaluating the formation of early SG, which includes performing skin biopsies as soon as lesions appear.

The study had no funding. The study authors and Dr. Alster disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Striae gravidarum (SG) – or pregnancy stretch marks – are a source of distress and embarrassment for many women, similar in that respect to acne, psoriasis, or eczema, according to a new study.

In the study of healthy pregnant women, “we found that SG can be associated with a host of negative reactions reflecting increased psychological and emotional distress,” reported Kaveri Karhade, MD, from the Berman Skin Institute, Los Altos, Calif., and coauthors from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Karhade was with the department of dermatology at the University of Michigan at the time the study was conducted.

“We suggest that health care providers should avoid thinking of SG as merely a cosmetic ‘nuisance,’ ” they wrote in an article published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. “Instead, it would be reasonable for providers to approach SG like other dermatologic concerns, and to consider asking patients whether SG cause emotional distress and whether prevention or treatment strategies should be attempted, even if not completely effective and potentially costly.”

The investigators did not evaluate treatments, but Frank Wang, MD, senior author of the study and professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Michigan Medicine, said in an interview that, “while they aren’t completely effective, some treatments can still help.” In addition, “recommending something also shows that you are listening to patients’ concerns – taking their concerns and skin lesions seriously,” he said.
 

Patient survey

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 116 healthy pregnant women with SG. Participants were asked about the emotional and psychological effects of the lesions and how SG affects quality of life. The survey was modeled on questions from the Dermatology Life Quality Index, which asks about the impact of skin disease on embarrassment/self-consciousness, clothing choice, leisure activities, and interpersonal problems. “Content of questions was also devised from direct discussion with pregnant women attending clinic appointments or participating in other research studies on SG at our institution, and discussion with expert colleagues in obstetrics and dermatology,” the authors explained.

The survey consisted of 35 questions concerning demographics, pregnancy characteristics, personal and family history of SG, specific physical concerns about SG, impact of SG on attitude toward pregnancy, willingness to prevent SG or seek treatment, severity of SG (self-evaluated), the impact of SG on specific life-quality facets, and the location of lesions.

About two-thirds of respondents were aged 25-36 years and were White; the remainder self-identified as Asian, Black, Native American, or “other.” Most women reported “average” weight gain during the current pregnancy. Almost half of participants (45%) reporting a history of SG from prior pregnancies, and 65% reported a family history of SG.

The abdomen was identified most frequently as the location of SG (75%), followed by the breasts (43%), hips (43%), thighs (36%), buttocks (19%), and other areas (6%).

For most women (75%), permanency of the lesions was their top concern. About half (51%) reported that they had attempted to prevent SG, mostly with topical creams or oils. Three-quarters (75%) expressed interest in seeking treatment for SG, but this percentage dropped significantly to 33% (P =.008) if that treatment would not be covered by insurance.

Regarding the psychological impact of SG, embarrassment/self-consciousness correlated most strongly with lesion severity, followed by general quality of life, impact on choice of attire, impact on self-image/self-esteem, feelings of anxiety/depression related to SG, alteration of social/leisure activities related to SG (all P < .0001), and creation of interpersonal problems related to SG (P = .02).

The investigators also found that an increase in the effect of SG on self-image/self-esteem was “moderately associated” with younger age (P < .001) and that increased embarrassment related to SG was “moderately associated” with weight gain during pregnancy (P < .001).

“For years, stretch marks have been a topic to avoid and something many women try to hide,” Timothy Johnson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan and coauthor of the study, said in a press release from the university. “Pregnant women talk about stretch marks with me every single week at clinic, and it’s time we break the stigma and start talking about them openly with all patients. ... By doing this study, we have an opportunity to normalize stretch marks in the context of all other dermatological conditions.”

Asked to comment on the findings, Tina Alster, MD, director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington, said her 3 decades of clinical experience support the authors’ findings. “Most patients who have striae are very self-conscious about them and report that their presence has negatively impacted their quality of life and self-confidence,” she said in an interview. “Of course, patients who come to my office are interested in having them treated, so my patient subset is skewed.”

She said treatment strategies that she discusses with patients include topical retinol/retinoids, which she said provide “low clinical response”; microneedling, which provides “marked” clinical response; and nonablative laser treatment, which provides “good” clinical response.

Considering particular patient characteristics, including budget, Dr. Alster said, “For those on a limited budget, I would propose daily use of a topical retinol, despite the low clinical effect. Many retinol-containing products are available over the counter. Prescription-strength retinoic acid tends to be pricey, often costing as much as in-office treatments.” Medical microneedling (not the cosmetic “roller” microneedling performed by aestheticians), she added, “gives the best results for the money and produces clinical results that mirror those achieved with lasers.”

Dr. Wang agreed that even recommending less expensive and less efficacious options such as over-the-counter creams can help alleviate patients’ concerns. “It shows that you are being holistic – not just caring for medical issues around pregnancy, but that you also take the emotional/psychological concerns of pregnant individuals and new parents seriously and that you recognize the impact of skin problems on quality of life. In the end, recommending something – in other words, providing some options, like creams or other therapies, for instance – is still, in my opinion, better than not recommending anything.”

Dr. Wang is involved with a study that is currently enrolling patients and that is evaluating the formation of early SG, which includes performing skin biopsies as soon as lesions appear.

The study had no funding. The study authors and Dr. Alster disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 cases

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

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

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

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

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

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

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

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

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

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

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

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

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

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

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

Review of the Term

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

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

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

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 cases

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

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

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

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

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

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

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

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

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

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

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

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

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

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

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

Review of the Term

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

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

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

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion

Patient access to mifepristone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue to: The Texas abortion case...

The Texas abortion case

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 cases

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

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

Continue to: The Affordable Care Act...

The Affordable Care Act

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

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

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

Pharmacy Benefit Managers

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

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

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

Continue to: Patent uncertainty...

Patent uncertainty

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

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

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

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

Review of the Term

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

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

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

Continue to: Next Term...

Next Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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