Women's Health

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to withdraw approval of Makena and generic versions of the drug, the agency announced April 6.

The medication was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk for preterm birth in women who had previously experienced spontaneous preterm birth. The treatment had been approved under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

A postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, however, and the agency proposed withdrawing the drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, in 2020. The drug’s sponsor requested a hearing on the decision, and that meeting was held in October 2022.

The FDA commissioner and chief scientist subsequently reviewed submitted reports, comments, and transcripts, and made the decision to withdraw the drug.

“Effective today, Makena and its generics are no longer approved and cannot lawfully be distributed in interstate commerce,” the agency said.

“It is tragic that the scientific research and medical communities have not yet found a treatment shown to be effective in preventing preterm birth and improving neonatal outcomes – particularly in light of the fact that this serious condition has a disparate impact on communities of color, especially Black women,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement.

Risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention, regulators have noted. The agency acknowledged that some supplies of the product have already been distributed. Patients with questions should talk to their health care provider, the FDA advised.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

Compared with infants who were not exposed to COVID-19 in the womb, those who were exposed had a lower weight and body mass index at birth, but greater weight gain, during the first year of life, in a new analysis.

This “exaggerated growth pattern observed among infants with COVID-19 exposure may in some cases be a catch-up response to a prenatal growth deficit,” Mollie W. Ockene and colleagues wrote in a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

But given that lower birth weight and accelerated postnatal weight gain are risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, the findings “raise concern” about whether children born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 go on to develop obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, senior coauthors Andrea G. Edlow, MD, and Lindsay T. Fourman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

Further studies in larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up and detailed assessments are needed, the researchers said, but this points to “a potentially increased cardiometabolic disease risk for the large global population of children with in utero COVID-19 exposure.”

It will be “important for clinicians caring for children with in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 to be aware of this history,” Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “and to view the child’s growth trajectory and metabolic risk factors in a holistic context that includes this prenatal infection exposure.”
 

COVID-19 vaccination important during and prior to pregnancy

The study also underscores the importance of primary prevention of COVID-19 among women who are contemplating pregnancy or who are already pregnant, the researchers noted, “including the need for widespread implementation of protective measures such as indoor masking and COVID-19 vaccination and boosting during or prior to pregnancy.”

Dr. Edlow and Dr. Fourman added, “Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations, adverse health outcomes following in utero exposure to maternal COVID-19 may threaten to widen existing disparities in child health.”

On the other hand, although “COVID-19 vaccination rates lagged behind in minority populations following the initial vaccine rollout,” they noted, “these differences have fortunately narrowed over time, particularly for Hispanic individuals, though they do still persist in the Black population,” according to a recent report.
 

BMI trajectories during first year of life

In utero exposure to COVID-19 has been linked to fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, preterm birth, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, but less is known about infant outcomes during the first year of life.

The researchers aimed to compare weight, length, and BMI trajectories over the first year of life in infants with, versus without, in utero exposure to COVID-19.

They identified 149 infants with in utero exposure to COVID-19 and 127 unexposed infants; all were born between March 30, 2020, and May 30, 2021, to mothers who participated in the Mass General Brigham COVID-19 Perinatal Biorepository.

The study excluded infants whose mothers received the vaccine (n = 5) or who had unclear vaccination status during pregnancy (n = 4) to reduce sample heterogeneity.

At the time of the study, few women had received the COVID-19 vaccine because vaccines were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC recommended them for all pregnant women much later, in August 2021.

The researchers examined the weight, length, and BMI of the infants at birth, and at 2, 6, and 12 months, standardized using World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts.

Compared with mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, those who had COVID-19 were younger (mean age, 32 vs. 34 years) and had a higher earliest BMI during pregnancy (29 vs. 26 kg/m²) and greater parity (previous births, excluding the index pregnancy, 1.2 vs. 0.9), and they were more likely to be Hispanic or Black and less likely to have private insurance.

Compared with infants exposed to COVID-19 in utero, infants who were not exposed were more likely to be male (47% vs. 55%).

Both infant groups were equally likely to be breastfed (90%).

Compared with the unexposed infants, infants born to mothers with prenatal COVID-19 had lower BMI z-scores at birth (effect size, −0.35; P = .03) and greater gain in BMI z-scores from birth to 12 months (effect size, 0.53; P = .03), but they had similar length at birth and over 12 months, after adjustment for maternal age at delivery, ethnicity, parity, insurance status, and earliest BMI during pregnancy, as well as infant sex, date of birth, and if applicable, history of breastfeeding.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Boston Area Diabetes Endocrinology Research Centers, American Heart Association, and Simons Foundation. Ms. Ockene has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edlow has reported being a consultant for Mirvie and receiving research funding from Merck outside the study. Dr. Fourman has reported serving as a consultant and receiving grant funding to her institution from Amryt outside the study. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Vaginal swabs are more effective than urine analysis in detecting certain types of sexually transmitted infections, researchers have found.

In the study, which was published online in the Annals of Family Medicine, investigators found that the diagnostic sensitivity of commercially available vaginal swabs was significantly greater than that of urine tests in detecting certain infections, including those caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis.

Researchers studied chlamydia and gonorrhea, which are two of the most frequently reported STIs in the United States. Trichomoniasis is the most curable nonviral STI globally, with 156 million cases worldwide in 2016.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended that vaginal swabs be used to produce optimal samples.

But despite the CDC’s recommendation, urine analysis for these STIs is more commonly used than vaginal swabs among U.S. health care providers.

“We’re using a poor sample type, and we can do better,” said Barbara Van Der Pol, PhD, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the new study, a meta-analysis of 97 studies published between 1995 and 2021.

Vaginal swabs for chlamydia trachomatis had a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 93.2%-94.9%; P < .001), higher than urine testing (86.9%; 95% CI, 85.6%-88.0%; P < .001). The pooled sensitivity estimates for Neisseria gonorrhoeae were 96.5% (95% CI, 94.8%-97.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 90.7% (95% CI, 88.4%-92.5%; P < .001) for urine specimens.

The difference in pooled sensitivity estimates between vaginal swabs and urine analyses for Trichomonas vaginalis was 98% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.6%-96.3%) for urine specimens.

STIs included in the study are not typically found in the urethra and appear in urine analyses only if cervical or vaginal cells have dripped into a urine sample. Dr. Van Der Pol and her colleagues estimated that the use of urine samples rather than vaginal swabs may result in more than 400,000 undiagnosed infections annually.

Undiagnosed and untreated STIs can lead to transmissions of the infection as well as infertility and can have negative effects on romantic relationships, according to Dr. Van Der Pol.

Sarah Wood, MD, an attending physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said some health care providers may use urine analysis because patients may be more comfortable with this method. The approach also can be more convenient for medical offices: All they must do is hand a specimen container to the patient.

Conversations between clinicians and patients about vaginal swabbing may be considered “sensitive” and the swabbing more invasive, Dr. Wood, an author of an editorial accompanying the journal article, said. Clinicians may also lack awareness that the swab is a more sensitive method of detecting these STIs.

“We all want to do what’s right for our patient, but we often don’t know what’s right for the patient,” Dr. Wood said. “I don’t think people are really aware of a potential real difference in outcomes with one method over the other.”

Dr. Wood advised making STI screening using vaginal swabs more common by “offering universal opt-out screening, so not waiting until you find out if someone’s having sex but just sort of saying, ‘Hey, across our practice, we screen everybody for chlamydia. Is that something that you want to do today?’ That approach sort of takes out the piece of talking about sex, talking about sexual activity.”

Dr. Van Der Pol, who said she has worked in STI diagnostics for 40 years, said she was not surprised by the results and hopes the study changes how samples are collected and used.

“I really hope that it influences practice so that we really start using vaginal swabs, because it gives us better diagnostics for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” Dr. Van Der Pol said.

“Also, then starting to think about comprehensive women’s care in such a way that they actually order other tests on that same sample if a woman is presenting with complaints.”

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

Vaginal swabs are more effective than urine analysis in detecting certain types of sexually transmitted infections, researchers have found.

In the study, which was published online in the Annals of Family Medicine, investigators found that the diagnostic sensitivity of commercially available vaginal swabs was significantly greater than that of urine tests in detecting certain infections, including those caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis.

Researchers studied chlamydia and gonorrhea, which are two of the most frequently reported STIs in the United States. Trichomoniasis is the most curable nonviral STI globally, with 156 million cases worldwide in 2016.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended that vaginal swabs be used to produce optimal samples.

But despite the CDC’s recommendation, urine analysis for these STIs is more commonly used than vaginal swabs among U.S. health care providers.

“We’re using a poor sample type, and we can do better,” said Barbara Van Der Pol, PhD, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the new study, a meta-analysis of 97 studies published between 1995 and 2021.

Vaginal swabs for chlamydia trachomatis had a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 93.2%-94.9%; P < .001), higher than urine testing (86.9%; 95% CI, 85.6%-88.0%; P < .001). The pooled sensitivity estimates for Neisseria gonorrhoeae were 96.5% (95% CI, 94.8%-97.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 90.7% (95% CI, 88.4%-92.5%; P < .001) for urine specimens.

The difference in pooled sensitivity estimates between vaginal swabs and urine analyses for Trichomonas vaginalis was 98% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.6%-96.3%) for urine specimens.

STIs included in the study are not typically found in the urethra and appear in urine analyses only if cervical or vaginal cells have dripped into a urine sample. Dr. Van Der Pol and her colleagues estimated that the use of urine samples rather than vaginal swabs may result in more than 400,000 undiagnosed infections annually.

Undiagnosed and untreated STIs can lead to transmissions of the infection as well as infertility and can have negative effects on romantic relationships, according to Dr. Van Der Pol.

Sarah Wood, MD, an attending physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said some health care providers may use urine analysis because patients may be more comfortable with this method. The approach also can be more convenient for medical offices: All they must do is hand a specimen container to the patient.

Conversations between clinicians and patients about vaginal swabbing may be considered “sensitive” and the swabbing more invasive, Dr. Wood, an author of an editorial accompanying the journal article, said. Clinicians may also lack awareness that the swab is a more sensitive method of detecting these STIs.

“We all want to do what’s right for our patient, but we often don’t know what’s right for the patient,” Dr. Wood said. “I don’t think people are really aware of a potential real difference in outcomes with one method over the other.”

Dr. Wood advised making STI screening using vaginal swabs more common by “offering universal opt-out screening, so not waiting until you find out if someone’s having sex but just sort of saying, ‘Hey, across our practice, we screen everybody for chlamydia. Is that something that you want to do today?’ That approach sort of takes out the piece of talking about sex, talking about sexual activity.”

Dr. Van Der Pol, who said she has worked in STI diagnostics for 40 years, said she was not surprised by the results and hopes the study changes how samples are collected and used.

“I really hope that it influences practice so that we really start using vaginal swabs, because it gives us better diagnostics for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” Dr. Van Der Pol said.

“Also, then starting to think about comprehensive women’s care in such a way that they actually order other tests on that same sample if a woman is presenting with complaints.”

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

Vaginal swabs are more effective than urine analysis in detecting certain types of sexually transmitted infections, researchers have found.

In the study, which was published online in the Annals of Family Medicine, investigators found that the diagnostic sensitivity of commercially available vaginal swabs was significantly greater than that of urine tests in detecting certain infections, including those caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis.

Researchers studied chlamydia and gonorrhea, which are two of the most frequently reported STIs in the United States. Trichomoniasis is the most curable nonviral STI globally, with 156 million cases worldwide in 2016.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long recommended that vaginal swabs be used to produce optimal samples.

But despite the CDC’s recommendation, urine analysis for these STIs is more commonly used than vaginal swabs among U.S. health care providers.

“We’re using a poor sample type, and we can do better,” said Barbara Van Der Pol, PhD, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the new study, a meta-analysis of 97 studies published between 1995 and 2021.

Vaginal swabs for chlamydia trachomatis had a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 93.2%-94.9%; P < .001), higher than urine testing (86.9%; 95% CI, 85.6%-88.0%; P < .001). The pooled sensitivity estimates for Neisseria gonorrhoeae were 96.5% (95% CI, 94.8%-97.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 90.7% (95% CI, 88.4%-92.5%; P < .001) for urine specimens.

The difference in pooled sensitivity estimates between vaginal swabs and urine analyses for Trichomonas vaginalis was 98% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.7%; P < .001) for vaginal swabs and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.6%-96.3%) for urine specimens.

STIs included in the study are not typically found in the urethra and appear in urine analyses only if cervical or vaginal cells have dripped into a urine sample. Dr. Van Der Pol and her colleagues estimated that the use of urine samples rather than vaginal swabs may result in more than 400,000 undiagnosed infections annually.

Undiagnosed and untreated STIs can lead to transmissions of the infection as well as infertility and can have negative effects on romantic relationships, according to Dr. Van Der Pol.

Sarah Wood, MD, an attending physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said some health care providers may use urine analysis because patients may be more comfortable with this method. The approach also can be more convenient for medical offices: All they must do is hand a specimen container to the patient.

Conversations between clinicians and patients about vaginal swabbing may be considered “sensitive” and the swabbing more invasive, Dr. Wood, an author of an editorial accompanying the journal article, said. Clinicians may also lack awareness that the swab is a more sensitive method of detecting these STIs.

“We all want to do what’s right for our patient, but we often don’t know what’s right for the patient,” Dr. Wood said. “I don’t think people are really aware of a potential real difference in outcomes with one method over the other.”

Dr. Wood advised making STI screening using vaginal swabs more common by “offering universal opt-out screening, so not waiting until you find out if someone’s having sex but just sort of saying, ‘Hey, across our practice, we screen everybody for chlamydia. Is that something that you want to do today?’ That approach sort of takes out the piece of talking about sex, talking about sexual activity.”

Dr. Van Der Pol, who said she has worked in STI diagnostics for 40 years, said she was not surprised by the results and hopes the study changes how samples are collected and used.

“I really hope that it influences practice so that we really start using vaginal swabs, because it gives us better diagnostics for chlamydia and gonorrhea,” Dr. Van Der Pol said.

“Also, then starting to think about comprehensive women’s care in such a way that they actually order other tests on that same sample if a woman is presenting with complaints.”

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published a draft recommendation on the use of folic acid before and during pregnancy to prevent fetal neural tube defects.¹ This reaffirmation of the 2017 recommendation states that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant should take a daily supplement of folic acid.^1,2 This is an “A” recommendation.

Neural tube defects are caused by a failure of the embryonic neural tube to close completely, which should occur in the first 28 days following fertilization. This is why folic acid is most effective if started at least 1 month before conception and continued for the first 2 to 3 months of pregnancy.

An estimated 3000 neural tube defects occur each year in the United States. Spina bifida, anencephaly, and encephalocele occur at respective rates of 3.9, 2.5, and 1.0 in 10,000 live births in the United States, which totals 7.4/10,000.³

Folic acid, if taken before and during pregnancy, can prevent about half of neural tube defects; if taken only during pregnancy, it prevents about one-third. If 50% of neural tube defects could be prevented with folic acid supplements, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 case is about 3000.⁴

The case for supplementation. The recommended daily dose of folic acid is between 0.4 mg (400 μg) and 0.8 mg (800 μg), which is contained in many multivitamin products. Certain enriched cereal grain products in the United States have been fortified with folic acid for more than 2 decades, but it is unknown whether women in the United States are ingesting enough of these fortified foods to provide maximum prevention of neural tube defects. There are no known harms to mother or fetus from folic acid supplementation at recommended levels.

Room for improvement. Only 20% to 40% of people who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and 5% to 10% of people with an unplanned pregnancy, take folic acid supplements. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.⁴ This leaves a lot of room for improvement in the prevention of neural tube defects.

An important recommendation, even if you don’t see the results. The NNT to prevent a case of neural tube defect is high; most family physicians providing perinatal care will not prevent a case during their career. And, as with most preventive interventions, we do not see the cases prevented. However, on a population-wide basis, if all women took folic acid as recommended, the number of severe birth defects prevented would be significant—making this simple recommendation worth mentioning to those of reproductive age.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published a draft recommendation on the use of folic acid before and during pregnancy to prevent fetal neural tube defects.¹ This reaffirmation of the 2017 recommendation states that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant should take a daily supplement of folic acid.^1,2 This is an “A” recommendation.

Neural tube defects are caused by a failure of the embryonic neural tube to close completely, which should occur in the first 28 days following fertilization. This is why folic acid is most effective if started at least 1 month before conception and continued for the first 2 to 3 months of pregnancy.

An estimated 3000 neural tube defects occur each year in the United States. Spina bifida, anencephaly, and encephalocele occur at respective rates of 3.9, 2.5, and 1.0 in 10,000 live births in the United States, which totals 7.4/10,000.³

Folic acid, if taken before and during pregnancy, can prevent about half of neural tube defects; if taken only during pregnancy, it prevents about one-third. If 50% of neural tube defects could be prevented with folic acid supplements, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 case is about 3000.⁴

The case for supplementation. The recommended daily dose of folic acid is between 0.4 mg (400 μg) and 0.8 mg (800 μg), which is contained in many multivitamin products. Certain enriched cereal grain products in the United States have been fortified with folic acid for more than 2 decades, but it is unknown whether women in the United States are ingesting enough of these fortified foods to provide maximum prevention of neural tube defects. There are no known harms to mother or fetus from folic acid supplementation at recommended levels.

Room for improvement. Only 20% to 40% of people who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and 5% to 10% of people with an unplanned pregnancy, take folic acid supplements. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.⁴ This leaves a lot of room for improvement in the prevention of neural tube defects.

An important recommendation, even if you don’t see the results. The NNT to prevent a case of neural tube defect is high; most family physicians providing perinatal care will not prevent a case during their career. And, as with most preventive interventions, we do not see the cases prevented. However, on a population-wide basis, if all women took folic acid as recommended, the number of severe birth defects prevented would be significant—making this simple recommendation worth mentioning to those of reproductive age.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published a draft recommendation on the use of folic acid before and during pregnancy to prevent fetal neural tube defects.¹ This reaffirmation of the 2017 recommendation states that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant should take a daily supplement of folic acid.^1,2 This is an “A” recommendation.

Neural tube defects are caused by a failure of the embryonic neural tube to close completely, which should occur in the first 28 days following fertilization. This is why folic acid is most effective if started at least 1 month before conception and continued for the first 2 to 3 months of pregnancy.

An estimated 3000 neural tube defects occur each year in the United States. Spina bifida, anencephaly, and encephalocele occur at respective rates of 3.9, 2.5, and 1.0 in 10,000 live births in the United States, which totals 7.4/10,000.³

Folic acid, if taken before and during pregnancy, can prevent about half of neural tube defects; if taken only during pregnancy, it prevents about one-third. If 50% of neural tube defects could be prevented with folic acid supplements, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 case is about 3000.⁴

The case for supplementation. The recommended daily dose of folic acid is between 0.4 mg (400 μg) and 0.8 mg (800 μg), which is contained in many multivitamin products. Certain enriched cereal grain products in the United States have been fortified with folic acid for more than 2 decades, but it is unknown whether women in the United States are ingesting enough of these fortified foods to provide maximum prevention of neural tube defects. There are no known harms to mother or fetus from folic acid supplementation at recommended levels.

Room for improvement. Only 20% to 40% of people who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and 5% to 10% of people with an unplanned pregnancy, take folic acid supplements. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.⁴ This leaves a lot of room for improvement in the prevention of neural tube defects.

An important recommendation, even if you don’t see the results. The NNT to prevent a case of neural tube defect is high; most family physicians providing perinatal care will not prevent a case during their career. And, as with most preventive interventions, we do not see the cases prevented. However, on a population-wide basis, if all women took folic acid as recommended, the number of severe birth defects prevented would be significant—making this simple recommendation worth mentioning to those of reproductive age.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

Long-term osteoporosis medications are associated with a reduced mortality risk following a fracture, new data suggest.

The findings, from nearly 50,000 individuals in a nationwide Taiwanese database from 2009 until 2018, suggest that alendronate/risedronate, denosumab, and zoledronic acid all result in a significantly lower mortality risk post fracture of 17%-22%, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

“Treatment for osteoporosis has the potential to minimize mortality risk in people of all ages and sexes for any type of fracture. The longer-acting treatments could lower mortality risk,” wrote Chih-Hsing Wu, MD, of the Institute of Gerontology at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

The findings have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Robert A. Adler, MD, who is chief of endocrinology at the Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Richmond, told this news organization that he hopes these new findings from a “really good database ... may be helpful in talking to a patient about the pros and cons of taking these drugs.”

“Patients have been made very fearful of the unusual side effects, particularly of the antiresorptive drugs,” which he notes include the rare adverse effects of jaw necrosis and atypical femoral fracture, which occur in about 1 per 10,000 patient-years.

“And because of that we have a hard time convincing people to want to take the drug in the first place or to stay on the drug once they start,” said Dr. Adler, who stressed that his viewpoints are his own and not representative of the VA.

“These data should help reinforce the advice already given in professional guidelines that their benefit outweighs any risks,” he stresses.

Dr. Adler also pointed out that both bisphosphonates included in the study, alendronate and zoledronic acid, are now available as generics and therefore inexpensive, but the latter can be subject to facility fees depending on where the infusion is delivered.

He added that hip fracture, in particular, triples the overall 1-year mortality risk in women aged 75-84 years and quadruples the risk in men. The study’s findings suggest that bisphosphonates, in particular, have pleiotropic effects beyond the bone; however, the underlying mechanisms are hard to determine.

“We don’t know all the reasons why people die after a fracture. These are older people who often have multiple medical problems, so it’s hard to dissect that out,” he said.

But whatever the mechanism for the salutary effect of the drugs, Dr. Adler said: “This is one other factor that might change people’s minds. You’re less likely to die. Well, that’s pretty good.”
 

‘Denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates’

Dr. Wu and colleagues analyzed data for individuals from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Between 2009 and 2017, 219,461 individuals had been newly diagnosed with an osteoporotic fracture. Of those, 46,729 were aged 40 and older and had been prescribed at least one anti-osteoporosis medication.

Participants were a mean age of 74.5 years, were 80% women, and 32% died during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. The most commonly used anti-osteoporosis medications were the bisphosphonates alendronate or risedronate, followed by denosumab and the selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs) daily oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene.

Patients treated with SERMs were used as the reference group because those drugs have been shown to have a neutral effect on mortality.

After adjustments, all but one of the medications had significantly lower mortality risks during follow-up, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

Compared with SERMs, at all fracture sites, the hazard ratios for mortality were 0.83 for alendronate/risedronate, 0.86 for denosumab, and 0.78 for zoledronic acid. Only ibandronate did not show the same protective effect.

Similar results were found for hip and vertebral fractures analyzed individually.  

Women had a lower mortality risk than men.

Dr. Adler wrote an accompanying editorial for the article by Dr. Wu and colleagues.

Regarding the finding of benefit for denosumab, Dr. Adler notes: “I don’t know of another study that found denosumab leads to lower mortality. On the other hand, denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates.”

The study was funded by research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, partially supported by a research grant from the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association and grants from National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Taiwan. Dr. Wu has reported receiving honoraria for lectures, attending meetings, and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Merck, Servier, GE Lunar, Harvester, TCM Biotech, and Alvogen/Lotus. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term osteoporosis medications are associated with a reduced mortality risk following a fracture, new data suggest.

The findings, from nearly 50,000 individuals in a nationwide Taiwanese database from 2009 until 2018, suggest that alendronate/risedronate, denosumab, and zoledronic acid all result in a significantly lower mortality risk post fracture of 17%-22%, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

“Treatment for osteoporosis has the potential to minimize mortality risk in people of all ages and sexes for any type of fracture. The longer-acting treatments could lower mortality risk,” wrote Chih-Hsing Wu, MD, of the Institute of Gerontology at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

The findings have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Robert A. Adler, MD, who is chief of endocrinology at the Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Richmond, told this news organization that he hopes these new findings from a “really good database ... may be helpful in talking to a patient about the pros and cons of taking these drugs.”

“Patients have been made very fearful of the unusual side effects, particularly of the antiresorptive drugs,” which he notes include the rare adverse effects of jaw necrosis and atypical femoral fracture, which occur in about 1 per 10,000 patient-years.

“And because of that we have a hard time convincing people to want to take the drug in the first place or to stay on the drug once they start,” said Dr. Adler, who stressed that his viewpoints are his own and not representative of the VA.

“These data should help reinforce the advice already given in professional guidelines that their benefit outweighs any risks,” he stresses.

Dr. Adler also pointed out that both bisphosphonates included in the study, alendronate and zoledronic acid, are now available as generics and therefore inexpensive, but the latter can be subject to facility fees depending on where the infusion is delivered.

He added that hip fracture, in particular, triples the overall 1-year mortality risk in women aged 75-84 years and quadruples the risk in men. The study’s findings suggest that bisphosphonates, in particular, have pleiotropic effects beyond the bone; however, the underlying mechanisms are hard to determine.

“We don’t know all the reasons why people die after a fracture. These are older people who often have multiple medical problems, so it’s hard to dissect that out,” he said.

But whatever the mechanism for the salutary effect of the drugs, Dr. Adler said: “This is one other factor that might change people’s minds. You’re less likely to die. Well, that’s pretty good.”
 

‘Denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates’

Dr. Wu and colleagues analyzed data for individuals from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Between 2009 and 2017, 219,461 individuals had been newly diagnosed with an osteoporotic fracture. Of those, 46,729 were aged 40 and older and had been prescribed at least one anti-osteoporosis medication.

Participants were a mean age of 74.5 years, were 80% women, and 32% died during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. The most commonly used anti-osteoporosis medications were the bisphosphonates alendronate or risedronate, followed by denosumab and the selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs) daily oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene.

Patients treated with SERMs were used as the reference group because those drugs have been shown to have a neutral effect on mortality.

After adjustments, all but one of the medications had significantly lower mortality risks during follow-up, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

Compared with SERMs, at all fracture sites, the hazard ratios for mortality were 0.83 for alendronate/risedronate, 0.86 for denosumab, and 0.78 for zoledronic acid. Only ibandronate did not show the same protective effect.

Similar results were found for hip and vertebral fractures analyzed individually.  

Women had a lower mortality risk than men.

Dr. Adler wrote an accompanying editorial for the article by Dr. Wu and colleagues.

Regarding the finding of benefit for denosumab, Dr. Adler notes: “I don’t know of another study that found denosumab leads to lower mortality. On the other hand, denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates.”

The study was funded by research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, partially supported by a research grant from the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association and grants from National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Taiwan. Dr. Wu has reported receiving honoraria for lectures, attending meetings, and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Merck, Servier, GE Lunar, Harvester, TCM Biotech, and Alvogen/Lotus. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term osteoporosis medications are associated with a reduced mortality risk following a fracture, new data suggest.

The findings, from nearly 50,000 individuals in a nationwide Taiwanese database from 2009 until 2018, suggest that alendronate/risedronate, denosumab, and zoledronic acid all result in a significantly lower mortality risk post fracture of 17%-22%, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

“Treatment for osteoporosis has the potential to minimize mortality risk in people of all ages and sexes for any type of fracture. The longer-acting treatments could lower mortality risk,” wrote Chih-Hsing Wu, MD, of the Institute of Gerontology at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, and colleagues.

The findings have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Robert A. Adler, MD, who is chief of endocrinology at the Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Richmond, told this news organization that he hopes these new findings from a “really good database ... may be helpful in talking to a patient about the pros and cons of taking these drugs.”

“Patients have been made very fearful of the unusual side effects, particularly of the antiresorptive drugs,” which he notes include the rare adverse effects of jaw necrosis and atypical femoral fracture, which occur in about 1 per 10,000 patient-years.

“And because of that we have a hard time convincing people to want to take the drug in the first place or to stay on the drug once they start,” said Dr. Adler, who stressed that his viewpoints are his own and not representative of the VA.

“These data should help reinforce the advice already given in professional guidelines that their benefit outweighs any risks,” he stresses.

Dr. Adler also pointed out that both bisphosphonates included in the study, alendronate and zoledronic acid, are now available as generics and therefore inexpensive, but the latter can be subject to facility fees depending on where the infusion is delivered.

He added that hip fracture, in particular, triples the overall 1-year mortality risk in women aged 75-84 years and quadruples the risk in men. The study’s findings suggest that bisphosphonates, in particular, have pleiotropic effects beyond the bone; however, the underlying mechanisms are hard to determine.

“We don’t know all the reasons why people die after a fracture. These are older people who often have multiple medical problems, so it’s hard to dissect that out,” he said.

But whatever the mechanism for the salutary effect of the drugs, Dr. Adler said: “This is one other factor that might change people’s minds. You’re less likely to die. Well, that’s pretty good.”
 

‘Denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates’

Dr. Wu and colleagues analyzed data for individuals from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Between 2009 and 2017, 219,461 individuals had been newly diagnosed with an osteoporotic fracture. Of those, 46,729 were aged 40 and older and had been prescribed at least one anti-osteoporosis medication.

Participants were a mean age of 74.5 years, were 80% women, and 32% died during a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. The most commonly used anti-osteoporosis medications were the bisphosphonates alendronate or risedronate, followed by denosumab and the selective estrogen-receptor modulators (SERMs) daily oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene.

Patients treated with SERMs were used as the reference group because those drugs have been shown to have a neutral effect on mortality.

After adjustments, all but one of the medications had significantly lower mortality risks during follow-up, compared with raloxifene and bazedoxifene.

Compared with SERMs, at all fracture sites, the hazard ratios for mortality were 0.83 for alendronate/risedronate, 0.86 for denosumab, and 0.78 for zoledronic acid. Only ibandronate did not show the same protective effect.

Similar results were found for hip and vertebral fractures analyzed individually.  

Women had a lower mortality risk than men.

Dr. Adler wrote an accompanying editorial for the article by Dr. Wu and colleagues.

Regarding the finding of benefit for denosumab, Dr. Adler notes: “I don’t know of another study that found denosumab leads to lower mortality. On the other hand, denosumab is a more potent antiresorptive than bisphosphonates.”

The study was funded by research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, partially supported by a research grant from the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association and grants from National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Taiwan. Dr. Wu has reported receiving honoraria for lectures, attending meetings, and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Merck, Servier, GE Lunar, Harvester, TCM Biotech, and Alvogen/Lotus. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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