Article

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

In the musical Hamilton, there is a line from the song “The Election of 1800” in which, after a tumultuous time, Thomas Jefferson pleads for a sense of normalcy with, “Can we get back to politics?”

Trying to get back to “normal,” whatever that is, characterized the year 2022. Peeking out from under the constant shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (not really gone, definitely not forgotten) were some blockbuster obstetrical headlines, including those on the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial and the impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Supreme Court decision. As these have been extensively covered in both OBG Management and other publications, in this Update we simply ask, “Can we get back to obstetrics?” as we focus on some straightforward patient care guidelines.

Thus, we offer updated information on the use of progesterone for preterm birth prevention, management of pregnancies that result from in vitro fertilization (IVF), and headache management in pregnant and postpartum patients.

Society guidance and FDA  advisement on the use of  progesterone for the prevention  of spontaneous preterm birth

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth. ACOG practice bulletin no. 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2021;397:1183-1194.

This is not déjà vu! Progesterone and spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a hot topic again. If you wonder what to tell your patients, you are not alone. Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in obstetrics, with a most recently reported overall rate of 10.49%¹ in the United States—a 4% increase from 2019. Preterm birth accounts for approximately 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity.²

What has not changed

A recent practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that some risk factors and screening assessments for PTB remain unchanged, including²:

• A history of PTB increases the risk for subsequent PTB. Risk increases with the number of prior preterm deliveries.
• A short cervix (<25 mm between 16 and  24 weeks’ gestation) is a risk factor for sPTB.
• The cervix should be visualized during the anatomy ultrasound exam (18 0/7 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation) in all pregnant patients regardless of prior birth history. If the cervix length (CL) appears shortened on transabdominal imaging, transvaginal (TV) imaging should be performed.
• Patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of sPTB should have serial TV cervical measurements between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation.²

EPPPIC changes and key takeaway points

In a meta-analysis of data from 31 randomized controlled trials, the EPPPIC (Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative) investigators compared vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate  (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control or with each other in women at risk for PTB.³ Outcomes included PTB and the associated adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

The EPPPIC study’s main findings were:

• Singleton pregnancies at high risk for PTB due to prior sPTB or short cervix who received 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone were less likely to deliver before  34 weeks’ gestation compared with those who received no treatment.
• There is a benefit to both 17-OHPC and vaginal progesterone in reducing the risk of PTB, with no clear evidence to support one intervention’s effectiveness over the other.
• There is benefit to either 17-OHPC or vaginal progesterone for CL less than 25 mm. The shorter the CL, the greater the absolute risk reduction on PTB.
• In multifetal pregnancies, use of 17-OHPC, when compared with placebo, was shown to increase the risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Neither 17-OHPC nor vaginal progesterone was found to reduce the risk of sPTB in multifetal pregnancies.³

What continues to change

While the March 30, 2021, statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), “Response to EPPPIC and consideration for the use of progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth” (https://www .smfm.org/publications/383-smfm-stat ement-response-to-epppic-and-consider ations-of-the-use-of-progestogens-for-the -prevention-of-preterm-birth), stands, ACOG has withdrawn its accompanying Practice Advisory on guidance for integrating the EPPPIC findings.

In August 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a hearing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s proposal to withdraw approval for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, 250 mg/mL, once weekly) on the basis that available evidence does not demonstrate that it is effective for its approved indication to reduce the risk of PTB in women with a singleton pregnancy with a history of singleton sPTB.⁴

The key takeaway points from the FDA hearing (October 17–19, 2022) were:

• A better designed randomized controlled confirmatory trial is needed in the most at-risk patients to determine if Makena is effective for its approved indication.
• Makena and its approved generic equivalents remain on the market until the FDA makes its final decision regarding approval.⁴

Continue to: Managing pregnancies that result from IVF...

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM); Ghidini A, Gandhi M, McCoy J, et al; Publications Committee. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series #60: management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226:B2-B12.

Assisted reproductive technology contributes to 1.6% of all infant births, and although most pregnancies are uncomplicated, some specific risks alter management.^5–7 For example, IVF is associated with increased rates of prematurity and its complications, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, congenital anomalies, genetic abnormalities, and placental abnormalities. In addition, there is doubling of the risk of morbidities to the pregnant IVF patient, including but not limited to hypertensive disorders and diabetes. These complications are thought to be related to both the process of IVF itself as well as to conditions that contribute to subfertility and infertility in the first place.

Genetic screening and diagnostic testing options

IVF pregnancies have a documented increase in chromosomal abnormalities compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies due to the following factors:

• karyotypic abnormalities in couples with infertility
• microdeletions on the Y chromosome in patients with oligospermia or azoospermia
• de novo chromosomal abnormalities in IVF pregnancies that utilize intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
• fragile X mutations in patients with reduced ovarian reserve
• imprinting disorders in patients with fertility issues.

A common misconception is that preimplantation genetic testing renders prenatal genetic screening or testing unnecessary. However, preimplantation testing can be anywhere from 43% to 84% concordant with prenatal diagnostic testing due to biologic and technical factors. Therefore, all pregnancies should be offered the same options of aneuploidy screening as well as diagnostic testing. Pretest counseling should include an increased risk in IVF pregnancies of false-positives for the first-trimester screen and “no-call” results for cell-free fetal DNA. Additionally, diagnostic testing is recommended specifically in cases where mosaic embryos are transferred when euploid embryos are not available.

Counseling on fetal reduction for multifetal pregnancies

The risks of multifetal pregnancies (particularly higher order multiples) are significant and well documented for both the patient and the fetuses. It is therefore recommended that the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction be discussed, including the risks and benefits of reduction versus pregnancy continuation, timing, procedural considerations, and genetic testing options.^5,8

Detailed anatomic survey and fetal echocardiogram are indicated

Fetal anomalies, including congenital cardiac defects, occur at a higher rate in IVF pregnancies compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies (475/10,000 live births vs 317/10,000 live births). Placental anomalies (such as placenta previa, vasa previa, and velamentous cord insertion) are also more common in this population. A detailed anatomic survey is therefore recommended for all IVF pregnancies and it is suggested that a fetal echocardiogram is offered these patients as well.

Pregnancy management and delivery considerations

Despite an increased risk of preterm birth, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction in IVF pregnancies (odds ratios range, 1.4–2), serial cervical lengths, serial growth ultrasound exams, and low-dose aspirin are not recommended for the sole indication of IVF. Due to lack of data on the utility of serial exams, a single screening cervical length at the time of anatomic survey and a third-trimester growth assessment are recommended. For aspirin, IVF qualifies as a “moderate” risk factor for preeclampsia; it is therefore recommended if another moderate risk factor is present (for example, nulliparity, obesity, or family history of preeclampsia).⁹

There is a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of stillbirth in IVF pregnancies; therefore, antenatal surveillance in the third trimester is recommended (weekly starting at 36 weeks for the sole indication of IVF).¹⁰ As no specific studies have evaluated the timing of delivery in IVF pregnancies, delivery recommendations include the option of 39-week delivery with shared decision-making with the patient.

Continue to: Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum...

Evaluating and treating headaches in pregnancy and postpartum

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical practice guideline no. 3: headaches in pregnancy and postpartum. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:944-972.

For obstetricians, headaches are a common and often frustrating condition to treat, as many of the available diagnostic tools and medications are either not recommended or have no data on use in pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, a headache is not always just a headache but could be a sign of a time-sensitive serious complication. An updated guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists approaches the topic of headaches in a stepwise algorithm that promotes efficiency and efficacy in diagnosis  and treatment.¹¹

Types of headaches

The primary headache types—migraine, cluster, and tension—are distinguished from each other by patient characteristics, quality, duration, location, and related symptoms. Reassuringly, headache frequency decreases by 30% to 80% during pregnancy, which allows for the option to decrease, change, or stop current medications, ideally prior to pregnancy. Prevention via use of calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, or β-blockers is recommended, as requiring acute treatments more than 2 days per week increases the risk of medication overuse headaches.

Treating acute headache

For patients who present with an acute headache consistent with their usual type, treatment starts with known medications that are compatible with pregnancy and proceeds in a stepwise fashion:

1. Acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally with or without caffeine 130 mg orally (maximum dose, acetaminophen < 3.25–4 g per day, caffeine 200 mg per day)

2. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously with or without diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously (for nausea and to counteract restlessness and offer sedation)

3. If headache continues after steps 1 and 2, consider the following secondary treatment options: magnesium sulfate 1–2 g intravenously, sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneously or 20-mg nasal spray, ibuprofen 600 mg orally once, or ketorolac 30 mg intravenously once (second trimester only)

4. If continued treatment and/or hospitalization is required after step 3, steroids can be used: prednisone 20 mg 4 times a day for 2 days or methylprednisolone 4-mg dose pack over 6 days

5. Do not use butalbital, opioids, or ergotamines due to lack of efficacy in providing additional pain relief, potential for addiction, risk of medication overuse headaches, and association with fetal/ pregnancy abnormalities.

Consider secondary headache

An acute headache discordant from the patient’s usual type or with concerning symptoms (“red flags”) requires consideration of secondary headaches as well as a comprehensive symptom evaluation, imaging, and consultation as needed. While secondary headaches postpartum are most likely musculoskeletal in nature, the following symptoms need to be evaluated immediately:

• rapid onset/change from baseline
• “thunderclap” nature
• hypertension
• fever
• focal neurologic deficits (blurry vision or blindness, confusion, seizures)
• altered consciousness
• laboratory abnormalities.

The differential diagnosis includes preeclampsia, reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), infection, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), post–dural puncture (PDP) headache, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), and less likely, carotid dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, pituitary apoplexy, or neoplasm.

Treatment. Individualized treatment depends on the diagnosis. Preeclampsia with severe features is treated with antihypertensive medication, magnesium sulfate, and delivery planning. PDP headache is treated with epidural blood patch, sphenopalatine block, or occipital block with an anesthesiology consultation. If preeclampsia and PDP are ruled out, or if there are more concerning neurologic features, imaging is essential, as 25% of pregnant patients with acute headaches will have a secondary etiology. Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast is preferred due to concerns about gadolinium crossing the placenta and the lack of data on long-term accumulation in fetal  tissues. Once diagnosed on imaging, PRES and RCVS are treated with antihypertensives and delivery. CVST is treated with anticoagulation and a thrombophilia workup. IIH may be treated with acetazolamide after 20 weeks or serial lumbar punctures. Intracranial vascular abnormalities may be treated with endoscopic resection and steroids. ●

The history and findings in this case are consistent with advanced infiltrating ductal carcinoma. 

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed life-threatening cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. In the United States, it is estimated that 287,850 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed in 2022; in addition, 43,250 deaths because of breast cancer are expected to occur. 

Infiltrating ductal carcinoma is the most common type of breast tumor. It accounts for 75% of breast cancers and has a propensity to metastasize via lymphatic vessels. This lesion has no specific histologic characteristics apart from invasion through the basement membrane. This enables it to be differentiated from ductal carcinoma in situ, which remains inside the duct. 

All newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancers are tested for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and HER2 status. The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors is tested by immunohistochemistry, whereas HER2 can be tested by either immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization (usually fluorescent or fluorescence in situ hybridization). Testing results have important treatment implications and prognostic significance. 

Surgical treatment of invasive breast cancer consists of either lumpectomy or total mastectomy, followed by radiation therapy. Surgical resection is performed in all patients with nonmetastatic disease. 

Systemic therapy options include endocrine therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. The choice of systemic therapy is largely determined by subtype. For example, patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors receive endocrine therapy; a minority of these patients may receive chemotherapy as well. Patients with HER2-positive tumors receive HER2–targeted antibody or small-molecule inhibitor therapy combined with chemotherapy. For patients with triple-negative tumors, chemotherapy alone is often used; newer targeted therapies however may improve outcomes. In both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting, the primary goal of treatment is to eradicate or control undiscovered distant metastases. In the metastatic setting, the primary goal of treatment is to extend life and alleviate symptoms. 

Depending on the individual patient, systemic therapy may be used in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Systemic therapy is chosen according to breast cancer subtype and recurrence risk, with the treatment for low-risk patients being de-escalated, whereas high-risk patients receive aggressive systemic treatment. When systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant setting, treatment response is the most important factor for predicting outcomes and selecting the optimal adjuvant therapy. Novel biological markers enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapy, which can achieve optimal efficacy. 

Up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for pre- and postoperative treatment of breast cancer, including advanced breast cancer, are provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are consistent with advanced infiltrating ductal carcinoma. 

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed life-threatening cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. In the United States, it is estimated that 287,850 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed in 2022; in addition, 43,250 deaths because of breast cancer are expected to occur. 

Infiltrating ductal carcinoma is the most common type of breast tumor. It accounts for 75% of breast cancers and has a propensity to metastasize via lymphatic vessels. This lesion has no specific histologic characteristics apart from invasion through the basement membrane. This enables it to be differentiated from ductal carcinoma in situ, which remains inside the duct. 

All newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancers are tested for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and HER2 status. The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors is tested by immunohistochemistry, whereas HER2 can be tested by either immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization (usually fluorescent or fluorescence in situ hybridization). Testing results have important treatment implications and prognostic significance. 

Surgical treatment of invasive breast cancer consists of either lumpectomy or total mastectomy, followed by radiation therapy. Surgical resection is performed in all patients with nonmetastatic disease. 

Systemic therapy options include endocrine therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. The choice of systemic therapy is largely determined by subtype. For example, patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors receive endocrine therapy; a minority of these patients may receive chemotherapy as well. Patients with HER2-positive tumors receive HER2–targeted antibody or small-molecule inhibitor therapy combined with chemotherapy. For patients with triple-negative tumors, chemotherapy alone is often used; newer targeted therapies however may improve outcomes. In both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting, the primary goal of treatment is to eradicate or control undiscovered distant metastases. In the metastatic setting, the primary goal of treatment is to extend life and alleviate symptoms. 

Depending on the individual patient, systemic therapy may be used in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Systemic therapy is chosen according to breast cancer subtype and recurrence risk, with the treatment for low-risk patients being de-escalated, whereas high-risk patients receive aggressive systemic treatment. When systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant setting, treatment response is the most important factor for predicting outcomes and selecting the optimal adjuvant therapy. Novel biological markers enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapy, which can achieve optimal efficacy. 

Up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for pre- and postoperative treatment of breast cancer, including advanced breast cancer, are provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are consistent with advanced infiltrating ductal carcinoma. 

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed life-threatening cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. In the United States, it is estimated that 287,850 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed in 2022; in addition, 43,250 deaths because of breast cancer are expected to occur. 

Infiltrating ductal carcinoma is the most common type of breast tumor. It accounts for 75% of breast cancers and has a propensity to metastasize via lymphatic vessels. This lesion has no specific histologic characteristics apart from invasion through the basement membrane. This enables it to be differentiated from ductal carcinoma in situ, which remains inside the duct. 

All newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancers are tested for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and HER2 status. The presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors is tested by immunohistochemistry, whereas HER2 can be tested by either immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization (usually fluorescent or fluorescence in situ hybridization). Testing results have important treatment implications and prognostic significance. 

Surgical treatment of invasive breast cancer consists of either lumpectomy or total mastectomy, followed by radiation therapy. Surgical resection is performed in all patients with nonmetastatic disease. 

Systemic therapy options include endocrine therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. The choice of systemic therapy is largely determined by subtype. For example, patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors receive endocrine therapy; a minority of these patients may receive chemotherapy as well. Patients with HER2-positive tumors receive HER2–targeted antibody or small-molecule inhibitor therapy combined with chemotherapy. For patients with triple-negative tumors, chemotherapy alone is often used; newer targeted therapies however may improve outcomes. In both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting, the primary goal of treatment is to eradicate or control undiscovered distant metastases. In the metastatic setting, the primary goal of treatment is to extend life and alleviate symptoms. 

Depending on the individual patient, systemic therapy may be used in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Systemic therapy is chosen according to breast cancer subtype and recurrence risk, with the treatment for low-risk patients being de-escalated, whereas high-risk patients receive aggressive systemic treatment. When systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant setting, treatment response is the most important factor for predicting outcomes and selecting the optimal adjuvant therapy. Novel biological markers enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapy, which can achieve optimal efficacy. 

Up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for pre- and postoperative treatment of breast cancer, including advanced breast cancer, are provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

The approach to hysterectomy has been debated, with the need for individualization case by case stressed, and the expertise of the operating surgeon considered.

CASE Was surgeon experience a factor in case complications?

VM is a 46-year-old woman (G5 P4014) reporting persistent uterine bleeding that is refractory to medical therapy. The patient has uterine fibroids, 6 weeks in size on examination, with “mild” prolapse noted. Additional medical diagnoses included vulvitis, ovarian cyst in the past, cystic mastopathy, and prior evidence of pelvic adhesion, noted at the time of ovarian cystectomy. Prior surgical records were not obtained by the operating surgeon, although her obstetric history includes 2 prior vaginal deliveries and 2 cesarean deliveries (CDs). The patient had an umbilical herniorraphy a number of years ago. Her medications include hormonal therapy, for presumed menopause, and medication for depression (she reported “doing well” on medication). She reported smoking 1 PPD and had a prior tubal ligation.

VM was previously evaluated for Lynch Syndrome and informed of the potential for increased risks of colon, endometrial, and several other cancers. She did not have cancer as of the time of planned surgery.

The patient underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The operating surgeon did not have a lot of experience with robotic hysterectomies but told the patient preoperatively “I have done a few.” Perioperatively, blood loss was minimal, urine output was recorded as 25 mL, and according to the operative report there were extensive pelvic adhesions and no complications. The “ureters were identified” when the broad ligament was opened at the time of skeletonization of the uterine vessels and documented accordingly. The intraoperative Foley was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The pathology report noted diffuse adenomyosis and uterine fibroids; the uterus weighed 250 g. In addition, a “large hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst” was noted on the right ovary.

The patient presented for a postoperative visit reporting “leaking” serosanguinous fluid that began 2.5 weeks postoperatively and required her to wear 3 to 4 “Depends” every day. She also reported constipation since beginning her prescribed pain medication. She requested a copy of her medical records and said she was dissatisfied with the care she had received related to the hysterectomy; she was “seeking a second opinion from a urologist.” The urologist suggested evaluation of the “leaking,” and a Foley catheter was placed. When she stood up, however, there was leaking around the catheter, and she reported a “yellowish-green,” foul smelling discharge. She called the urologist’s office, stating, “I think I have a bowel obstruction.” The patient was instructed to proceed to the emergency department at her local hospital. She was released with a diagnosis of constipation. Upon follow-up urologic evaluation, a vulvovaginal fistula was noted. Management was a “simple fistula repair,” and the patient did well subsequently.

The patient brought suit against the hospital and operating gynecologist. In part the hospital records noted, “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” The hospital was taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege “problems.”

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES LL28

Continue to: Medical opinion...

Medical opinion

This case demonstrates a number of issues. (We will discuss the credentials for the surgeon and hospital privileges in the legal considerations section.) From the medical perspective, the rate of urologic injury associated with all hysterectomies is 0.87%.¹ Robotic hysterectomy has been reported at 0.92% in a series published from Henry Ford Hospital.¹ The lowest rate of urologic injury is associated with vaginal hysterectomy, reported at 0.2%.² Reported rates of urologic injury by approach to hysterectomy are¹:

• robotic, 0.92%
• laparoscopic, 0.90%
• vaginal, 0.33%
• abdominal, 0.96%.

Complications by surgeon type also have been addressed, and the percent of total urologic complications are reported as¹:

• ObGyn, 47%
• gyn oncologist, 47%
• urogynecologist, 6%.

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy from initial robotic approach has been addressed in a retrospective study over a 2-year period, with operative times ranging from 1 hr, 50 min to 9 hrs of surgical time.¹ The vast majority of intraoperative complications in a series reported from Finland were managed “within minutes,” and in the series of 83 patients, 5 (6%) required conversion to laparotomy.² Intraoperative complications reported include failed entry, vascular injury, nerve injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, tumor fragmentation, and anesthetic-related complications.³ Of note, the vascular injuries included inferior vena cava, common iliac, and external iliac.

Mortality rates in association with benign laparoscopic and robotic procedures have been addressed and noted to be 1:6,456 cases based upon a meta-analysis.⁴ The analysis included 124,216 patients. Laparoscopic versus robotic mortality rates were not statistically different. Mortality was more common among cases of undiagnosed rare colorectal injury. This mortality is on par with complications from Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Procedures such as sacrocolpopexy are equated with higher mortality (1:1,246) in comparison with benign hysterectomy.⁵

Infectious complications following either laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were reported at less than 1% and not statistically different for either approach.⁶ The series authored by Marra et al evaluated 176,016 patients.

Overall, robotic-assisted gynecologic complications are rare. One series was focused on gynecological oncologic cases.⁷ Specific categories of complications included⁷:

• patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum
• injury to surrounding organs
• bowel injury
• port site metastasis
• surgical emphysema
• vaginal cuff dehiscence
• anesthesia-related problems.

The authors concluded, “robotic assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is safe and the incidence of complications is low.”⁷ The major cause of death related to robotic surgery is vascular injury–related. The authors emphasized the importance of knowledge of anatomy, basic principles of “traction and counter-traction” and proper dissection along tissue planes as key to minimizing complications. Consider placement of stents for ureter identification, as appropriate. Barbed-suturing does not prevent dehiscence.

Continue to: Legal considerations...

Robotic surgery presents many legal issues and promises to raise many more in the future. The law must control new technology while encouraging productive uses, and provide new remedies for harms while respecting traditional legal principles.⁸ There is no shortage of good ideas about controlling surgical robots,⁹ automated devices more generally,¹⁰ and artificial intelligence.¹¹ Those issues will be important, and watching them unfold will be intriguing.

In the meantime, physicians and other health care professionals, health care facilities, technology companies, and patients must work within current legal structures in implementing and using robotic surgery. These are extraordinarily complex issues, so it is possible only to review the current landscape and speculate what the near future may hold.

Regulating surgical robots

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulator of robots used in medicine.¹² It has the authority to regulate surgical devices, including surgical robots—which it refers to as “robotically-assisted surgical devices,” or RASD. In 2000, it approved Intuitive Surgical’s daVinci system for use in surgery. In 2017, the FDA expanded its clearance to include the Senhance System of TransEnterix Surgical Inc. for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.¹³ In 2021, the FDA cleared the Hominis Surgical System for transvaginal hysterectomy “in certain patients.” However, the FDA emphasized that this clearance is for benign hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy.¹⁴ (The FDA has cleared various robotic devices for several other areas of surgical practice, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology.)

The use of robots in cancer surgery is limited. The FDA approved specific RASDs in some “surgical procedures commonly performed in patients with cancer, such as hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy.”¹⁵ However, it cautioned that this clearance was based only on a 30-day patient follow up. More specifically, the FDA “has not evaluated the safety or effectiveness of RASD devices for the prevention or treatment of cancer, based on cancer-related outcomes such as overall survival, recurrence, and disease-free survival.”¹⁵

The FDA has clearly warned physicians and patients that the agency has not granted the use of RASDs “for any cancer-related surgery marketing authorization, and therefore the survival benefits to patients compared to traditional surgery have not been established.”¹⁵ (This did not apply to the hysterectomy surgery as noted above. More specifically, that clearance did not apply to anything other than 30-day results, nor to the efficacy related to cancer survival.)

States also have some authority to regulate medical practice within their borders.⁹ When the FDA has approved a device as safe and effective, however, there are limits on what states can do to regulate or impose liability on the approved product. The Supreme Court held that the FDA approval “pre-empted” some state action regarding approved devices.¹⁶

Hospitals, of course, regulate what is allowed within the hospital. For example, it may require training before a physician is permitted to use equipment, limit the conditions for which the equipment may be used, or decline to obtain equipment for use in the hospitals.¹⁷ In the case of RASDs, however, the high cost of equipment may provide an incentive for hospitals to urge the wide use of the latest robotic acquisition.¹⁸

Regulation aims primarily to protect patients, usually from injury or inadequate treatment. Some robotic surgery is likely to be more expensive than the same surgery without robotic assistance. The cost to the patient is not usually part of the FDA’s consideration. Insurance companies (including Medicare and Medicaid), however, do care about costs and will set or negotiate how much the reimbursement will be for a procedure. Third-party payers may decline to cover the additional cost when there is no apparent benefit from using the robot.¹⁹ For some institutions, the public perception that it offers “the most modern technology” is an important public message and a strong incentive to have the equipment.²⁰

There are inconsistent studies about the advantages and disadvantages of RADS in gynecologic procedures, although there are few randomized studies.²¹ The demonstrated advantages are generally identified as somewhat shorter recovery time.²² The ultimate goal will be to minimize risks while maximizing the many potential benefits of robotic surgery.²³

Continue to: Liability...

Liability

A recent study by De Ravin and colleagues of robotic surgery liability found a 250% increase in the total number of robotic surgery–related malpractice claims reported in 7 recent years (2014-2021), compared with the prior 7 (2006-2013).²⁴ However, the number of cases varied considerably from year to year. ObGyn had the most significant gain (from 19% to 49% of all claims). During the same time, urology claims declined from 56% to 16%. (The limitations of the study’s data are discussed later in this article.)

De Ravin et al reported the legal bases for the claims, but the specific legal claim was unclear in many cases.²⁴ For example, the vast majority were classified as “negligent surgery.” Many cases made more than 1 legal claim for liability, so the total percentages were greater than 100%. Of the specific claims, many appear unrelated to robotic surgery (misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, or infection). However, there were a significant number of cases that raised issues that were related to robotic surgery. The following are those claims that probably relate to the “robotic” surgery, along with the percentage of cases making such a claim as reported²⁴:

• “Patient not a candidate for surgery performed” appeared in about 13% of the cases.²⁴ Such claims could include that the surgeon should have performed the surgery with traditional laparoscopy or open technique, but instead using a robot led to the injury. Physicians may feel pressure from patients or hospitals, because of the equipment’s cost, to use robotic surgery as it seems to be the modern approach (and therefore better). Neither reason is sufficient for using robotic assistance unless it will benefit the patient.
• “Failure to calibrate or operate robot” was in 11% of the claims.²⁴ Physicians must properly calibrate and otherwise ensure that surgical equipment is operating correctly. In addition, the hospitals supplying the equipment must ensure that the equipment is maintained correctly. Finally, the equipment manufacturer may be liable through “products liability” if the equipment is defective.²⁵ The expanding use of artificial intelligence in medical equipment (including surgical robots) is increasing the complexity of determining what “defective” means.¹¹
• “Training deficiencies or credentialing” liability is a common problem with new technology. Physicians using new technology should be thoroughly trained and, where appropriate, certified in the use of the new technology.²⁶ Early adopters of the technology should be especially cautious because good training may be challenging to obtain. In the study, the claims of inadequate training were particularly high during the early 7 years (35%), but dropped during the later time (4%).²⁴
• “Improper positioning” of the patient or device or patient was raised in 7% of the cases.²⁴
• “Manufacturing problems” were claimed in a small number of cases—13% in 2006-2013, but 2% in 2014-2021.²⁴ These cases raise the complex question of products liability for robotic surgery and artificial intelligence (AI). Products liability has been part of surgical practice for many years. There usually will be liability if there are “defects” in a product, whether or not resulting from negligence. What a “defect” in a computer program means is a complicated issue that will be significant in future liability cases.²⁷

Several other cases reported in the De Ravin study were probably related to robotic surgery. For example, Informed Consent and Failure to Monitor each appeared in more than 30%, of 2014-2021 cases, and Failure to Refer in 16% of the cases.^24,27

The outcomes of the reported cases were mostly verdicts (or trial-related settlements) for defendants (doctors and hospitals). The defense prevailed 69% of the time in the early period and 78% of the time in 2014-2021. However, there were substantial damages in some cases. The range of damages in 2006-2013 was $95,000 to $6 million (mean, $2.5 million); in 2014-2021, it was $10,000 to $5 million (mean, $1.3 million).²⁴

An earlier study looked at reported cases against Intuitive Surgical, maker of the daVinci system, from 2000-2017.²⁸ Of the 108 claims in the study, 62% were gynecologic surgeries. Of these claims, 35% were dismissed, but “no other information regarding settlements or trial outcomes was available.” The study did not report the basis for the lawsuits involving gynecologic surgeries.

We should exercise caution in reviewing these studies. Although the studies were of considerable value, the authors note significant limitations of the databases available. The database was Westlaw in the first study discussed (“Robotic surgery: the impact”²⁴) and Bloomberg in the second (“Robotic urologic”²⁸). For example, the “impact” study was based on “jury verdict reports” excluding settlements, and the latter excluded class actions and cases settled. Thus the studies undoubtedly understated the number of claims made (those that resulted in settlement before a lawsuit was filed), cases filed but abandoned, and settlements made before trial.

Despite these limitations, the studies provide valuable insights into current malpractice risks and future directions. It is worth remembering that these cases nearly all involved a single robot, the daVinci, produced by Intuitive Surgical. It is not a “smart” robot and is commonly referred to as a “master-slave” machine. With much more intelligent and independent machines, the future will raise more complex problems in the FDA approval process and malpractice and product liability claims when things go wrong.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

The case of VM and operating surgeon Dr. G illustrates several important legal aspects of using surgical robots. It also demonstrates that the presence of the robot assist still requires the surgeon’s careful attention to issues of informed consent, adequate specific training, and thorough follow up. In the following discussion, we divide the case review into the elements of negligence-malpractice (duty and breach, causation, and damages) and conclude with a thought about how to proceed when things have gone wrong.

Dr. G’s statement, “I’ve done a few,” is indefinite, but it may suggest that Dr. G. had not received full, supervised training in the robotic assist he was planning to use. That problem was underlined by the conclusion that Dr. G was a “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” If so, that failure could constitute a breach of the duty of care to the patient. In addition, if it is inaccurate or did not provide information VM reasonably needed in consenting to Dr. G proceeding with the surgery, there could be an issue of whether there was a partial failure of fully informed consent.

The hospital also may have potential liability. It was “taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege ‘problems,’” suggesting that it had not performed adequate review before granting hospital privileges. Furthermore, if Dr. G was not sufficiently practiced or supervised in robotic surgery, the hospital, which allowed Dr. G to proceed, might also be negligent.

VM had a series of problems postsurgery that ultimately resulted in additional care and “simple fistula repair.” Assuming that there was negligence, the next question is whether that failure caused the injury. Causation may be the most difficult part of the case for VM to prove. It would require expert testimony that the inadequate surgery (inappropriate use of robotic surgery or other error during surgery) and follow up resulted in the formation or increase in the likelihood of the fistula.

VM would also have to prove damages. Damages are those costs (the economic value) of injuries that would not have occurred but for negligence. Damages would include most of the cost of the follow-up medical care and any related additional future care required, plus costs that were a consequence of the negligence (such as lost work). In addition, damages would include pain and suffering that resulted from the negligence, subject to caps in some states.

When the patient was dissatisfied and reported a postsurgical problem, the hospital and Dr. G may have had an opportunity to avoid further dissatisfaction, complaints, and ultimately a lawsuit. Effective approaches for dealing with such dissatisfaction may serve the institution’s and physician’s values and financial best interests.

The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Jurors felt the operating surgeon should have conveyed his experience with robotic surgery more clearly as part of the informed consent process.

“Hey Siri! Perform a type 3 hysterectomy. Please watch out for the ureter!”²⁹

Medicine is still at the frontier of surgical robots. Over future decades, the number and sophistication of these machines will increase substantially. They likely will become much more like robots, guided by AI, and make independent judgments. These have the potential for significant medical progress that improves the treatment of patients. At the same time, the last 20 years suggest that robotic innovation will challenge medicine, the FDA and other regulators, lawmakers, and courts. In the future, regulators and patients should embrace genuine advances in robotic surgery but not be dazzled by these new machines’ luster (or potential for considerable profits).³⁰

The public may be wildly optimistic about the benefits without balancing the risks. The AI that runs them will be essentially invisible and constantly changing. Physicians and regulators must develop new techniques for assessing and controlling the software. Real surgical robots require rigorous testing, cautious promotion, disciplined use, and perpetual review. ●

The approach to hysterectomy has been debated, with the need for individualization case by case stressed, and the expertise of the operating surgeon considered.

CASE Was surgeon experience a factor in case complications?

VM is a 46-year-old woman (G5 P4014) reporting persistent uterine bleeding that is refractory to medical therapy. The patient has uterine fibroids, 6 weeks in size on examination, with “mild” prolapse noted. Additional medical diagnoses included vulvitis, ovarian cyst in the past, cystic mastopathy, and prior evidence of pelvic adhesion, noted at the time of ovarian cystectomy. Prior surgical records were not obtained by the operating surgeon, although her obstetric history includes 2 prior vaginal deliveries and 2 cesarean deliveries (CDs). The patient had an umbilical herniorraphy a number of years ago. Her medications include hormonal therapy, for presumed menopause, and medication for depression (she reported “doing well” on medication). She reported smoking 1 PPD and had a prior tubal ligation.

VM was previously evaluated for Lynch Syndrome and informed of the potential for increased risks of colon, endometrial, and several other cancers. She did not have cancer as of the time of planned surgery.

The patient underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The operating surgeon did not have a lot of experience with robotic hysterectomies but told the patient preoperatively “I have done a few.” Perioperatively, blood loss was minimal, urine output was recorded as 25 mL, and according to the operative report there were extensive pelvic adhesions and no complications. The “ureters were identified” when the broad ligament was opened at the time of skeletonization of the uterine vessels and documented accordingly. The intraoperative Foley was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The pathology report noted diffuse adenomyosis and uterine fibroids; the uterus weighed 250 g. In addition, a “large hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst” was noted on the right ovary.

The patient presented for a postoperative visit reporting “leaking” serosanguinous fluid that began 2.5 weeks postoperatively and required her to wear 3 to 4 “Depends” every day. She also reported constipation since beginning her prescribed pain medication. She requested a copy of her medical records and said she was dissatisfied with the care she had received related to the hysterectomy; she was “seeking a second opinion from a urologist.” The urologist suggested evaluation of the “leaking,” and a Foley catheter was placed. When she stood up, however, there was leaking around the catheter, and she reported a “yellowish-green,” foul smelling discharge. She called the urologist’s office, stating, “I think I have a bowel obstruction.” The patient was instructed to proceed to the emergency department at her local hospital. She was released with a diagnosis of constipation. Upon follow-up urologic evaluation, a vulvovaginal fistula was noted. Management was a “simple fistula repair,” and the patient did well subsequently.

The patient brought suit against the hospital and operating gynecologist. In part the hospital records noted, “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” The hospital was taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege “problems.”

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES LL28

Continue to: Medical opinion...

Medical opinion

This case demonstrates a number of issues. (We will discuss the credentials for the surgeon and hospital privileges in the legal considerations section.) From the medical perspective, the rate of urologic injury associated with all hysterectomies is 0.87%.¹ Robotic hysterectomy has been reported at 0.92% in a series published from Henry Ford Hospital.¹ The lowest rate of urologic injury is associated with vaginal hysterectomy, reported at 0.2%.² Reported rates of urologic injury by approach to hysterectomy are¹:

• robotic, 0.92%
• laparoscopic, 0.90%
• vaginal, 0.33%
• abdominal, 0.96%.

Complications by surgeon type also have been addressed, and the percent of total urologic complications are reported as¹:

• ObGyn, 47%
• gyn oncologist, 47%
• urogynecologist, 6%.

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy from initial robotic approach has been addressed in a retrospective study over a 2-year period, with operative times ranging from 1 hr, 50 min to 9 hrs of surgical time.¹ The vast majority of intraoperative complications in a series reported from Finland were managed “within minutes,” and in the series of 83 patients, 5 (6%) required conversion to laparotomy.² Intraoperative complications reported include failed entry, vascular injury, nerve injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, tumor fragmentation, and anesthetic-related complications.³ Of note, the vascular injuries included inferior vena cava, common iliac, and external iliac.

Mortality rates in association with benign laparoscopic and robotic procedures have been addressed and noted to be 1:6,456 cases based upon a meta-analysis.⁴ The analysis included 124,216 patients. Laparoscopic versus robotic mortality rates were not statistically different. Mortality was more common among cases of undiagnosed rare colorectal injury. This mortality is on par with complications from Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Procedures such as sacrocolpopexy are equated with higher mortality (1:1,246) in comparison with benign hysterectomy.⁵

Infectious complications following either laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were reported at less than 1% and not statistically different for either approach.⁶ The series authored by Marra et al evaluated 176,016 patients.

Overall, robotic-assisted gynecologic complications are rare. One series was focused on gynecological oncologic cases.⁷ Specific categories of complications included⁷:

• patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum
• injury to surrounding organs
• bowel injury
• port site metastasis
• surgical emphysema
• vaginal cuff dehiscence
• anesthesia-related problems.

The authors concluded, “robotic assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is safe and the incidence of complications is low.”⁷ The major cause of death related to robotic surgery is vascular injury–related. The authors emphasized the importance of knowledge of anatomy, basic principles of “traction and counter-traction” and proper dissection along tissue planes as key to minimizing complications. Consider placement of stents for ureter identification, as appropriate. Barbed-suturing does not prevent dehiscence.

Continue to: Legal considerations...

Robotic surgery presents many legal issues and promises to raise many more in the future. The law must control new technology while encouraging productive uses, and provide new remedies for harms while respecting traditional legal principles.⁸ There is no shortage of good ideas about controlling surgical robots,⁹ automated devices more generally,¹⁰ and artificial intelligence.¹¹ Those issues will be important, and watching them unfold will be intriguing.

In the meantime, physicians and other health care professionals, health care facilities, technology companies, and patients must work within current legal structures in implementing and using robotic surgery. These are extraordinarily complex issues, so it is possible only to review the current landscape and speculate what the near future may hold.

Regulating surgical robots

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulator of robots used in medicine.¹² It has the authority to regulate surgical devices, including surgical robots—which it refers to as “robotically-assisted surgical devices,” or RASD. In 2000, it approved Intuitive Surgical’s daVinci system for use in surgery. In 2017, the FDA expanded its clearance to include the Senhance System of TransEnterix Surgical Inc. for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.¹³ In 2021, the FDA cleared the Hominis Surgical System for transvaginal hysterectomy “in certain patients.” However, the FDA emphasized that this clearance is for benign hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy.¹⁴ (The FDA has cleared various robotic devices for several other areas of surgical practice, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology.)

The use of robots in cancer surgery is limited. The FDA approved specific RASDs in some “surgical procedures commonly performed in patients with cancer, such as hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy.”¹⁵ However, it cautioned that this clearance was based only on a 30-day patient follow up. More specifically, the FDA “has not evaluated the safety or effectiveness of RASD devices for the prevention or treatment of cancer, based on cancer-related outcomes such as overall survival, recurrence, and disease-free survival.”¹⁵

The FDA has clearly warned physicians and patients that the agency has not granted the use of RASDs “for any cancer-related surgery marketing authorization, and therefore the survival benefits to patients compared to traditional surgery have not been established.”¹⁵ (This did not apply to the hysterectomy surgery as noted above. More specifically, that clearance did not apply to anything other than 30-day results, nor to the efficacy related to cancer survival.)

States also have some authority to regulate medical practice within their borders.⁹ When the FDA has approved a device as safe and effective, however, there are limits on what states can do to regulate or impose liability on the approved product. The Supreme Court held that the FDA approval “pre-empted” some state action regarding approved devices.¹⁶

Hospitals, of course, regulate what is allowed within the hospital. For example, it may require training before a physician is permitted to use equipment, limit the conditions for which the equipment may be used, or decline to obtain equipment for use in the hospitals.¹⁷ In the case of RASDs, however, the high cost of equipment may provide an incentive for hospitals to urge the wide use of the latest robotic acquisition.¹⁸

Regulation aims primarily to protect patients, usually from injury or inadequate treatment. Some robotic surgery is likely to be more expensive than the same surgery without robotic assistance. The cost to the patient is not usually part of the FDA’s consideration. Insurance companies (including Medicare and Medicaid), however, do care about costs and will set or negotiate how much the reimbursement will be for a procedure. Third-party payers may decline to cover the additional cost when there is no apparent benefit from using the robot.¹⁹ For some institutions, the public perception that it offers “the most modern technology” is an important public message and a strong incentive to have the equipment.²⁰

There are inconsistent studies about the advantages and disadvantages of RADS in gynecologic procedures, although there are few randomized studies.²¹ The demonstrated advantages are generally identified as somewhat shorter recovery time.²² The ultimate goal will be to minimize risks while maximizing the many potential benefits of robotic surgery.²³

Continue to: Liability...

Liability

A recent study by De Ravin and colleagues of robotic surgery liability found a 250% increase in the total number of robotic surgery–related malpractice claims reported in 7 recent years (2014-2021), compared with the prior 7 (2006-2013).²⁴ However, the number of cases varied considerably from year to year. ObGyn had the most significant gain (from 19% to 49% of all claims). During the same time, urology claims declined from 56% to 16%. (The limitations of the study’s data are discussed later in this article.)

De Ravin et al reported the legal bases for the claims, but the specific legal claim was unclear in many cases.²⁴ For example, the vast majority were classified as “negligent surgery.” Many cases made more than 1 legal claim for liability, so the total percentages were greater than 100%. Of the specific claims, many appear unrelated to robotic surgery (misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, or infection). However, there were a significant number of cases that raised issues that were related to robotic surgery. The following are those claims that probably relate to the “robotic” surgery, along with the percentage of cases making such a claim as reported²⁴:

• “Patient not a candidate for surgery performed” appeared in about 13% of the cases.²⁴ Such claims could include that the surgeon should have performed the surgery with traditional laparoscopy or open technique, but instead using a robot led to the injury. Physicians may feel pressure from patients or hospitals, because of the equipment’s cost, to use robotic surgery as it seems to be the modern approach (and therefore better). Neither reason is sufficient for using robotic assistance unless it will benefit the patient.
• “Failure to calibrate or operate robot” was in 11% of the claims.²⁴ Physicians must properly calibrate and otherwise ensure that surgical equipment is operating correctly. In addition, the hospitals supplying the equipment must ensure that the equipment is maintained correctly. Finally, the equipment manufacturer may be liable through “products liability” if the equipment is defective.²⁵ The expanding use of artificial intelligence in medical equipment (including surgical robots) is increasing the complexity of determining what “defective” means.¹¹
• “Training deficiencies or credentialing” liability is a common problem with new technology. Physicians using new technology should be thoroughly trained and, where appropriate, certified in the use of the new technology.²⁶ Early adopters of the technology should be especially cautious because good training may be challenging to obtain. In the study, the claims of inadequate training were particularly high during the early 7 years (35%), but dropped during the later time (4%).²⁴
• “Improper positioning” of the patient or device or patient was raised in 7% of the cases.²⁴
• “Manufacturing problems” were claimed in a small number of cases—13% in 2006-2013, but 2% in 2014-2021.²⁴ These cases raise the complex question of products liability for robotic surgery and artificial intelligence (AI). Products liability has been part of surgical practice for many years. There usually will be liability if there are “defects” in a product, whether or not resulting from negligence. What a “defect” in a computer program means is a complicated issue that will be significant in future liability cases.²⁷

Several other cases reported in the De Ravin study were probably related to robotic surgery. For example, Informed Consent and Failure to Monitor each appeared in more than 30%, of 2014-2021 cases, and Failure to Refer in 16% of the cases.^24,27

The outcomes of the reported cases were mostly verdicts (or trial-related settlements) for defendants (doctors and hospitals). The defense prevailed 69% of the time in the early period and 78% of the time in 2014-2021. However, there were substantial damages in some cases. The range of damages in 2006-2013 was $95,000 to $6 million (mean, $2.5 million); in 2014-2021, it was $10,000 to $5 million (mean, $1.3 million).²⁴

An earlier study looked at reported cases against Intuitive Surgical, maker of the daVinci system, from 2000-2017.²⁸ Of the 108 claims in the study, 62% were gynecologic surgeries. Of these claims, 35% were dismissed, but “no other information regarding settlements or trial outcomes was available.” The study did not report the basis for the lawsuits involving gynecologic surgeries.

We should exercise caution in reviewing these studies. Although the studies were of considerable value, the authors note significant limitations of the databases available. The database was Westlaw in the first study discussed (“Robotic surgery: the impact”²⁴) and Bloomberg in the second (“Robotic urologic”²⁸). For example, the “impact” study was based on “jury verdict reports” excluding settlements, and the latter excluded class actions and cases settled. Thus the studies undoubtedly understated the number of claims made (those that resulted in settlement before a lawsuit was filed), cases filed but abandoned, and settlements made before trial.

Despite these limitations, the studies provide valuable insights into current malpractice risks and future directions. It is worth remembering that these cases nearly all involved a single robot, the daVinci, produced by Intuitive Surgical. It is not a “smart” robot and is commonly referred to as a “master-slave” machine. With much more intelligent and independent machines, the future will raise more complex problems in the FDA approval process and malpractice and product liability claims when things go wrong.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

The case of VM and operating surgeon Dr. G illustrates several important legal aspects of using surgical robots. It also demonstrates that the presence of the robot assist still requires the surgeon’s careful attention to issues of informed consent, adequate specific training, and thorough follow up. In the following discussion, we divide the case review into the elements of negligence-malpractice (duty and breach, causation, and damages) and conclude with a thought about how to proceed when things have gone wrong.

Dr. G’s statement, “I’ve done a few,” is indefinite, but it may suggest that Dr. G. had not received full, supervised training in the robotic assist he was planning to use. That problem was underlined by the conclusion that Dr. G was a “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” If so, that failure could constitute a breach of the duty of care to the patient. In addition, if it is inaccurate or did not provide information VM reasonably needed in consenting to Dr. G proceeding with the surgery, there could be an issue of whether there was a partial failure of fully informed consent.

The hospital also may have potential liability. It was “taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege ‘problems,’” suggesting that it had not performed adequate review before granting hospital privileges. Furthermore, if Dr. G was not sufficiently practiced or supervised in robotic surgery, the hospital, which allowed Dr. G to proceed, might also be negligent.

VM had a series of problems postsurgery that ultimately resulted in additional care and “simple fistula repair.” Assuming that there was negligence, the next question is whether that failure caused the injury. Causation may be the most difficult part of the case for VM to prove. It would require expert testimony that the inadequate surgery (inappropriate use of robotic surgery or other error during surgery) and follow up resulted in the formation or increase in the likelihood of the fistula.

VM would also have to prove damages. Damages are those costs (the economic value) of injuries that would not have occurred but for negligence. Damages would include most of the cost of the follow-up medical care and any related additional future care required, plus costs that were a consequence of the negligence (such as lost work). In addition, damages would include pain and suffering that resulted from the negligence, subject to caps in some states.

When the patient was dissatisfied and reported a postsurgical problem, the hospital and Dr. G may have had an opportunity to avoid further dissatisfaction, complaints, and ultimately a lawsuit. Effective approaches for dealing with such dissatisfaction may serve the institution’s and physician’s values and financial best interests.

The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Jurors felt the operating surgeon should have conveyed his experience with robotic surgery more clearly as part of the informed consent process.

“Hey Siri! Perform a type 3 hysterectomy. Please watch out for the ureter!”²⁹

Medicine is still at the frontier of surgical robots. Over future decades, the number and sophistication of these machines will increase substantially. They likely will become much more like robots, guided by AI, and make independent judgments. These have the potential for significant medical progress that improves the treatment of patients. At the same time, the last 20 years suggest that robotic innovation will challenge medicine, the FDA and other regulators, lawmakers, and courts. In the future, regulators and patients should embrace genuine advances in robotic surgery but not be dazzled by these new machines’ luster (or potential for considerable profits).³⁰

The public may be wildly optimistic about the benefits without balancing the risks. The AI that runs them will be essentially invisible and constantly changing. Physicians and regulators must develop new techniques for assessing and controlling the software. Real surgical robots require rigorous testing, cautious promotion, disciplined use, and perpetual review. ●

The approach to hysterectomy has been debated, with the need for individualization case by case stressed, and the expertise of the operating surgeon considered.

CASE Was surgeon experience a factor in case complications?

VM is a 46-year-old woman (G5 P4014) reporting persistent uterine bleeding that is refractory to medical therapy. The patient has uterine fibroids, 6 weeks in size on examination, with “mild” prolapse noted. Additional medical diagnoses included vulvitis, ovarian cyst in the past, cystic mastopathy, and prior evidence of pelvic adhesion, noted at the time of ovarian cystectomy. Prior surgical records were not obtained by the operating surgeon, although her obstetric history includes 2 prior vaginal deliveries and 2 cesarean deliveries (CDs). The patient had an umbilical herniorraphy a number of years ago. Her medications include hormonal therapy, for presumed menopause, and medication for depression (she reported “doing well” on medication). She reported smoking 1 PPD and had a prior tubal ligation.

VM was previously evaluated for Lynch Syndrome and informed of the potential for increased risks of colon, endometrial, and several other cancers. She did not have cancer as of the time of planned surgery.

The patient underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The operating surgeon did not have a lot of experience with robotic hysterectomies but told the patient preoperatively “I have done a few.” Perioperatively, blood loss was minimal, urine output was recorded as 25 mL, and according to the operative report there were extensive pelvic adhesions and no complications. The “ureters were identified” when the broad ligament was opened at the time of skeletonization of the uterine vessels and documented accordingly. The intraoperative Foley was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The pathology report noted diffuse adenomyosis and uterine fibroids; the uterus weighed 250 g. In addition, a “large hemorrhagic corpus luteum cyst” was noted on the right ovary.

The patient presented for a postoperative visit reporting “leaking” serosanguinous fluid that began 2.5 weeks postoperatively and required her to wear 3 to 4 “Depends” every day. She also reported constipation since beginning her prescribed pain medication. She requested a copy of her medical records and said she was dissatisfied with the care she had received related to the hysterectomy; she was “seeking a second opinion from a urologist.” The urologist suggested evaluation of the “leaking,” and a Foley catheter was placed. When she stood up, however, there was leaking around the catheter, and she reported a “yellowish-green,” foul smelling discharge. She called the urologist’s office, stating, “I think I have a bowel obstruction.” The patient was instructed to proceed to the emergency department at her local hospital. She was released with a diagnosis of constipation. Upon follow-up urologic evaluation, a vulvovaginal fistula was noted. Management was a “simple fistula repair,” and the patient did well subsequently.

The patient brought suit against the hospital and operating gynecologist. In part the hospital records noted, “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” The hospital was taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege “problems.”

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES LL28

Continue to: Medical opinion...

Medical opinion

This case demonstrates a number of issues. (We will discuss the credentials for the surgeon and hospital privileges in the legal considerations section.) From the medical perspective, the rate of urologic injury associated with all hysterectomies is 0.87%.¹ Robotic hysterectomy has been reported at 0.92% in a series published from Henry Ford Hospital.¹ The lowest rate of urologic injury is associated with vaginal hysterectomy, reported at 0.2%.² Reported rates of urologic injury by approach to hysterectomy are¹:

• robotic, 0.92%
• laparoscopic, 0.90%
• vaginal, 0.33%
• abdominal, 0.96%.

Complications by surgeon type also have been addressed, and the percent of total urologic complications are reported as¹:

• ObGyn, 47%
• gyn oncologist, 47%
• urogynecologist, 6%.

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy from initial robotic approach has been addressed in a retrospective study over a 2-year period, with operative times ranging from 1 hr, 50 min to 9 hrs of surgical time.¹ The vast majority of intraoperative complications in a series reported from Finland were managed “within minutes,” and in the series of 83 patients, 5 (6%) required conversion to laparotomy.² Intraoperative complications reported include failed entry, vascular injury, nerve injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, tumor fragmentation, and anesthetic-related complications.³ Of note, the vascular injuries included inferior vena cava, common iliac, and external iliac.

Mortality rates in association with benign laparoscopic and robotic procedures have been addressed and noted to be 1:6,456 cases based upon a meta-analysis.⁴ The analysis included 124,216 patients. Laparoscopic versus robotic mortality rates were not statistically different. Mortality was more common among cases of undiagnosed rare colorectal injury. This mortality is on par with complications from Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Procedures such as sacrocolpopexy are equated with higher mortality (1:1,246) in comparison with benign hysterectomy.⁵

Infectious complications following either laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy were reported at less than 1% and not statistically different for either approach.⁶ The series authored by Marra et al evaluated 176,016 patients.

Overall, robotic-assisted gynecologic complications are rare. One series was focused on gynecological oncologic cases.⁷ Specific categories of complications included⁷:

• patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum
• injury to surrounding organs
• bowel injury
• port site metastasis
• surgical emphysema
• vaginal cuff dehiscence
• anesthesia-related problems.

The authors concluded, “robotic assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is safe and the incidence of complications is low.”⁷ The major cause of death related to robotic surgery is vascular injury–related. The authors emphasized the importance of knowledge of anatomy, basic principles of “traction and counter-traction” and proper dissection along tissue planes as key to minimizing complications. Consider placement of stents for ureter identification, as appropriate. Barbed-suturing does not prevent dehiscence.

Continue to: Legal considerations...

Robotic surgery presents many legal issues and promises to raise many more in the future. The law must control new technology while encouraging productive uses, and provide new remedies for harms while respecting traditional legal principles.⁸ There is no shortage of good ideas about controlling surgical robots,⁹ automated devices more generally,¹⁰ and artificial intelligence.¹¹ Those issues will be important, and watching them unfold will be intriguing.

In the meantime, physicians and other health care professionals, health care facilities, technology companies, and patients must work within current legal structures in implementing and using robotic surgery. These are extraordinarily complex issues, so it is possible only to review the current landscape and speculate what the near future may hold.

Regulating surgical robots

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulator of robots used in medicine.¹² It has the authority to regulate surgical devices, including surgical robots—which it refers to as “robotically-assisted surgical devices,” or RASD. In 2000, it approved Intuitive Surgical’s daVinci system for use in surgery. In 2017, the FDA expanded its clearance to include the Senhance System of TransEnterix Surgical Inc. for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.¹³ In 2021, the FDA cleared the Hominis Surgical System for transvaginal hysterectomy “in certain patients.” However, the FDA emphasized that this clearance is for benign hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy.¹⁴ (The FDA has cleared various robotic devices for several other areas of surgical practice, including neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology.)

The use of robots in cancer surgery is limited. The FDA approved specific RASDs in some “surgical procedures commonly performed in patients with cancer, such as hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy.”¹⁵ However, it cautioned that this clearance was based only on a 30-day patient follow up. More specifically, the FDA “has not evaluated the safety or effectiveness of RASD devices for the prevention or treatment of cancer, based on cancer-related outcomes such as overall survival, recurrence, and disease-free survival.”¹⁵

The FDA has clearly warned physicians and patients that the agency has not granted the use of RASDs “for any cancer-related surgery marketing authorization, and therefore the survival benefits to patients compared to traditional surgery have not been established.”¹⁵ (This did not apply to the hysterectomy surgery as noted above. More specifically, that clearance did not apply to anything other than 30-day results, nor to the efficacy related to cancer survival.)

States also have some authority to regulate medical practice within their borders.⁹ When the FDA has approved a device as safe and effective, however, there are limits on what states can do to regulate or impose liability on the approved product. The Supreme Court held that the FDA approval “pre-empted” some state action regarding approved devices.¹⁶

Hospitals, of course, regulate what is allowed within the hospital. For example, it may require training before a physician is permitted to use equipment, limit the conditions for which the equipment may be used, or decline to obtain equipment for use in the hospitals.¹⁷ In the case of RASDs, however, the high cost of equipment may provide an incentive for hospitals to urge the wide use of the latest robotic acquisition.¹⁸

Regulation aims primarily to protect patients, usually from injury or inadequate treatment. Some robotic surgery is likely to be more expensive than the same surgery without robotic assistance. The cost to the patient is not usually part of the FDA’s consideration. Insurance companies (including Medicare and Medicaid), however, do care about costs and will set or negotiate how much the reimbursement will be for a procedure. Third-party payers may decline to cover the additional cost when there is no apparent benefit from using the robot.¹⁹ For some institutions, the public perception that it offers “the most modern technology” is an important public message and a strong incentive to have the equipment.²⁰

There are inconsistent studies about the advantages and disadvantages of RADS in gynecologic procedures, although there are few randomized studies.²¹ The demonstrated advantages are generally identified as somewhat shorter recovery time.²² The ultimate goal will be to minimize risks while maximizing the many potential benefits of robotic surgery.²³

Continue to: Liability...

Liability

A recent study by De Ravin and colleagues of robotic surgery liability found a 250% increase in the total number of robotic surgery–related malpractice claims reported in 7 recent years (2014-2021), compared with the prior 7 (2006-2013).²⁴ However, the number of cases varied considerably from year to year. ObGyn had the most significant gain (from 19% to 49% of all claims). During the same time, urology claims declined from 56% to 16%. (The limitations of the study’s data are discussed later in this article.)

De Ravin et al reported the legal bases for the claims, but the specific legal claim was unclear in many cases.²⁴ For example, the vast majority were classified as “negligent surgery.” Many cases made more than 1 legal claim for liability, so the total percentages were greater than 100%. Of the specific claims, many appear unrelated to robotic surgery (misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, or infection). However, there were a significant number of cases that raised issues that were related to robotic surgery. The following are those claims that probably relate to the “robotic” surgery, along with the percentage of cases making such a claim as reported²⁴:

• “Patient not a candidate for surgery performed” appeared in about 13% of the cases.²⁴ Such claims could include that the surgeon should have performed the surgery with traditional laparoscopy or open technique, but instead using a robot led to the injury. Physicians may feel pressure from patients or hospitals, because of the equipment’s cost, to use robotic surgery as it seems to be the modern approach (and therefore better). Neither reason is sufficient for using robotic assistance unless it will benefit the patient.
• “Failure to calibrate or operate robot” was in 11% of the claims.²⁴ Physicians must properly calibrate and otherwise ensure that surgical equipment is operating correctly. In addition, the hospitals supplying the equipment must ensure that the equipment is maintained correctly. Finally, the equipment manufacturer may be liable through “products liability” if the equipment is defective.²⁵ The expanding use of artificial intelligence in medical equipment (including surgical robots) is increasing the complexity of determining what “defective” means.¹¹
• “Training deficiencies or credentialing” liability is a common problem with new technology. Physicians using new technology should be thoroughly trained and, where appropriate, certified in the use of the new technology.²⁶ Early adopters of the technology should be especially cautious because good training may be challenging to obtain. In the study, the claims of inadequate training were particularly high during the early 7 years (35%), but dropped during the later time (4%).²⁴
• “Improper positioning” of the patient or device or patient was raised in 7% of the cases.²⁴
• “Manufacturing problems” were claimed in a small number of cases—13% in 2006-2013, but 2% in 2014-2021.²⁴ These cases raise the complex question of products liability for robotic surgery and artificial intelligence (AI). Products liability has been part of surgical practice for many years. There usually will be liability if there are “defects” in a product, whether or not resulting from negligence. What a “defect” in a computer program means is a complicated issue that will be significant in future liability cases.²⁷

Several other cases reported in the De Ravin study were probably related to robotic surgery. For example, Informed Consent and Failure to Monitor each appeared in more than 30%, of 2014-2021 cases, and Failure to Refer in 16% of the cases.^24,27

The outcomes of the reported cases were mostly verdicts (or trial-related settlements) for defendants (doctors and hospitals). The defense prevailed 69% of the time in the early period and 78% of the time in 2014-2021. However, there were substantial damages in some cases. The range of damages in 2006-2013 was $95,000 to $6 million (mean, $2.5 million); in 2014-2021, it was $10,000 to $5 million (mean, $1.3 million).²⁴

An earlier study looked at reported cases against Intuitive Surgical, maker of the daVinci system, from 2000-2017.²⁸ Of the 108 claims in the study, 62% were gynecologic surgeries. Of these claims, 35% were dismissed, but “no other information regarding settlements or trial outcomes was available.” The study did not report the basis for the lawsuits involving gynecologic surgeries.

We should exercise caution in reviewing these studies. Although the studies were of considerable value, the authors note significant limitations of the databases available. The database was Westlaw in the first study discussed (“Robotic surgery: the impact”²⁴) and Bloomberg in the second (“Robotic urologic”²⁸). For example, the “impact” study was based on “jury verdict reports” excluding settlements, and the latter excluded class actions and cases settled. Thus the studies undoubtedly understated the number of claims made (those that resulted in settlement before a lawsuit was filed), cases filed but abandoned, and settlements made before trial.

Despite these limitations, the studies provide valuable insights into current malpractice risks and future directions. It is worth remembering that these cases nearly all involved a single robot, the daVinci, produced by Intuitive Surgical. It is not a “smart” robot and is commonly referred to as a “master-slave” machine. With much more intelligent and independent machines, the future will raise more complex problems in the FDA approval process and malpractice and product liability claims when things go wrong.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

The case of VM and operating surgeon Dr. G illustrates several important legal aspects of using surgical robots. It also demonstrates that the presence of the robot assist still requires the surgeon’s careful attention to issues of informed consent, adequate specific training, and thorough follow up. In the following discussion, we divide the case review into the elements of negligence-malpractice (duty and breach, causation, and damages) and conclude with a thought about how to proceed when things have gone wrong.

Dr. G’s statement, “I’ve done a few,” is indefinite, but it may suggest that Dr. G. had not received full, supervised training in the robotic assist he was planning to use. That problem was underlined by the conclusion that Dr. G was a “relatively inexperienced robotic surgeon.” If so, that failure could constitute a breach of the duty of care to the patient. In addition, if it is inaccurate or did not provide information VM reasonably needed in consenting to Dr. G proceeding with the surgery, there could be an issue of whether there was a partial failure of fully informed consent.

The hospital also may have potential liability. It was “taken to task for granting privileges to an individual that had prior privilege ‘problems,’” suggesting that it had not performed adequate review before granting hospital privileges. Furthermore, if Dr. G was not sufficiently practiced or supervised in robotic surgery, the hospital, which allowed Dr. G to proceed, might also be negligent.

VM had a series of problems postsurgery that ultimately resulted in additional care and “simple fistula repair.” Assuming that there was negligence, the next question is whether that failure caused the injury. Causation may be the most difficult part of the case for VM to prove. It would require expert testimony that the inadequate surgery (inappropriate use of robotic surgery or other error during surgery) and follow up resulted in the formation or increase in the likelihood of the fistula.

VM would also have to prove damages. Damages are those costs (the economic value) of injuries that would not have occurred but for negligence. Damages would include most of the cost of the follow-up medical care and any related additional future care required, plus costs that were a consequence of the negligence (such as lost work). In addition, damages would include pain and suffering that resulted from the negligence, subject to caps in some states.

When the patient was dissatisfied and reported a postsurgical problem, the hospital and Dr. G may have had an opportunity to avoid further dissatisfaction, complaints, and ultimately a lawsuit. Effective approaches for dealing with such dissatisfaction may serve the institution’s and physician’s values and financial best interests.

The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Jurors felt the operating surgeon should have conveyed his experience with robotic surgery more clearly as part of the informed consent process.

“Hey Siri! Perform a type 3 hysterectomy. Please watch out for the ureter!”²⁹

Medicine is still at the frontier of surgical robots. Over future decades, the number and sophistication of these machines will increase substantially. They likely will become much more like robots, guided by AI, and make independent judgments. These have the potential for significant medical progress that improves the treatment of patients. At the same time, the last 20 years suggest that robotic innovation will challenge medicine, the FDA and other regulators, lawmakers, and courts. In the future, regulators and patients should embrace genuine advances in robotic surgery but not be dazzled by these new machines’ luster (or potential for considerable profits).³⁰

The public may be wildly optimistic about the benefits without balancing the risks. The AI that runs them will be essentially invisible and constantly changing. Physicians and regulators must develop new techniques for assessing and controlling the software. Real surgical robots require rigorous testing, cautious promotion, disciplined use, and perpetual review. ●

Medication overuse headache, previously known as rebound headache or medication-induced headache, may be caused by the frequent or excessive use of various acute care medications. When these medications are used too frequently, they can cause headaches rather than relieving them. (Some headache specialists feel that MOH is the result of recurring severe headaches, and the patients’ overuse of medications to relieve them.) These medications, some of which are painkillers or analgesics, include over-the-counter products such as acetaminophen, aspirin, and anti-inflammatories, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, ergots opioids, opioids, and barbiturates. The one category of acute care medication that does not seem to cause MOH is the gepants, such as rimegepant and ubrogepant.

MOH is the fourth most common headache disorder. It is defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) as a headache present 15 days per month, evolving from regular use of strong acute medication (10 or more days of triptans, ergotamines, butalbital medications, opioids, or combination medications or 15 or more days per month of simple analgesics such as aspirin, acetaminophen, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories) for 3 months. 

Patients are usually not aware they have MOH, and this is the most problematic aspect of the condition. Patients do not realize that the medicine they are taking is making their headaches worse. It can be difficult to explain to the patient exactly what is going on with MOH, and why they are doing the wrong thing by taking the very medication that was prescribed by their doctor to stop a migraine attack. Many doctors do not fully understand MOH either, which can make it difficult to treat patients with this type of headache; therefore, it is imperative to educate both doctors and patients on the causes and treatments of MOH.

One of the most important facets of treating MOH traditionally has been the process of detoxifying patients from their overused medication by gradually or precipitously withdrawing the offending medication. There is variability in how detoxification can be accomplished. Some of my patients stopped medications abruptly and experienced very bad headaches. Others tried reducing dosages on their own and reported experiencing the worst headaches of their lives—some of which lasted for a few weeks. I have found that if patients can endure 2 to 3 weeks of detox, they start to feel better. But because the headaches can worsen before they get better, patients understandably try to avoid the detoxification process. 

I start patients on preventive medicine, then slowly increase it to an effective dose, and have them come back in a month for an evaluation. I then have them gradually reduce, but not completely stop, the pain medication before they return. Once I feel their preventive medication is at a therapeutic level, I have them begin a slow detox. After a month of preventive medication, there is a reasonable chance that headaches will start to decrease and be less severe. I tell them that if their headache is less severe try to avoid taking the medicine that they were overusing to prevent perpetuating the MOH.

One plausible physiologic mechanism behind MOH is that chronic exposure to acute care migraine treatment leads to suppression of the serotonergic/norepinephrinergic  endogenous antinociceptive system in the upper brain stem, with facilitation of the trigeminal nociceptive process via up-regulation of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).This increase in CGRP at the end of peripheral nerve terminals in the trigeminovascular system may facilitate pain transmission. An increase in cortical CGRP may cause cortical spreading depression: a wave of excitement traveling through the cortex, followed by a wave of electrical depression seems to cause headache.  

Good, effective prevention often helps avoid MOH; medications such as topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies or some type of local nerve block have improved MOH in patients, but detoxification is usually necessary is some patients. 

Monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor (CGRP-R), given by subcutaneous or intravenous injection or small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists given orally (gepants), seem to be able to treat MOH in some patients without a detoxification. This has been best demonstrated in the monoclonal antibody group, but there is some evidence showing that it may also occur with gepants. These treatments seem to work even when patients are overusing acute care medications; this helps some patients to self-detoxify at their own pace, which is easier for both the patient and the doctor.

Currently, there are 4 monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP-R. Erenumab is the only completely human one and the only antibody that blocks the CGRP receptor to prevent the CGRP ligand from docking and exerting its effect. The other 3 (fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) are humanized monoclonal antibodies that selectively bind to the CGRP ligand, preventing it from docking on its receptor.  Patients started on the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor usually have fewer headaches in the first week or two of therapy, and this helps make the self-detox easier for the patient. 

Further, substantial data have shown that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches and reduces the need for patients to take acute medication. OnabotulinumtoxinA is currently the only medication approved for preventive treatment of chronic migraine; it has long-term safety data available and has reported efficacy lasting for up to 3 years when given in multiple injection sites every 3 months. Interestingly, although topiramate is used as a preventive medication, a recent study comparing erenumab vs topiramate for reducing monthly migraine days (MMD) showed that erenumab outperformed topiramate with a 50% reduction in MMD, and with fewer reported adverse events.

We are just starting to learn about some other potential cellular mechanisms that could be causing MOH in patients; these data could help create new and improved therapies for treating and possibly preventing MOH in the future. Patient outcomes could also be improved by encouraging the inclusion of MOH as part of a continuing education program for physicians who could potentially be treating new patients presenting with MOH. 

Medication overuse headache, previously known as rebound headache or medication-induced headache, may be caused by the frequent or excessive use of various acute care medications. When these medications are used too frequently, they can cause headaches rather than relieving them. (Some headache specialists feel that MOH is the result of recurring severe headaches, and the patients’ overuse of medications to relieve them.) These medications, some of which are painkillers or analgesics, include over-the-counter products such as acetaminophen, aspirin, and anti-inflammatories, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, ergots opioids, opioids, and barbiturates. The one category of acute care medication that does not seem to cause MOH is the gepants, such as rimegepant and ubrogepant.

MOH is the fourth most common headache disorder. It is defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) as a headache present 15 days per month, evolving from regular use of strong acute medication (10 or more days of triptans, ergotamines, butalbital medications, opioids, or combination medications or 15 or more days per month of simple analgesics such as aspirin, acetaminophen, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories) for 3 months. 

Patients are usually not aware they have MOH, and this is the most problematic aspect of the condition. Patients do not realize that the medicine they are taking is making their headaches worse. It can be difficult to explain to the patient exactly what is going on with MOH, and why they are doing the wrong thing by taking the very medication that was prescribed by their doctor to stop a migraine attack. Many doctors do not fully understand MOH either, which can make it difficult to treat patients with this type of headache; therefore, it is imperative to educate both doctors and patients on the causes and treatments of MOH.

One of the most important facets of treating MOH traditionally has been the process of detoxifying patients from their overused medication by gradually or precipitously withdrawing the offending medication. There is variability in how detoxification can be accomplished. Some of my patients stopped medications abruptly and experienced very bad headaches. Others tried reducing dosages on their own and reported experiencing the worst headaches of their lives—some of which lasted for a few weeks. I have found that if patients can endure 2 to 3 weeks of detox, they start to feel better. But because the headaches can worsen before they get better, patients understandably try to avoid the detoxification process. 

I start patients on preventive medicine, then slowly increase it to an effective dose, and have them come back in a month for an evaluation. I then have them gradually reduce, but not completely stop, the pain medication before they return. Once I feel their preventive medication is at a therapeutic level, I have them begin a slow detox. After a month of preventive medication, there is a reasonable chance that headaches will start to decrease and be less severe. I tell them that if their headache is less severe try to avoid taking the medicine that they were overusing to prevent perpetuating the MOH.

One plausible physiologic mechanism behind MOH is that chronic exposure to acute care migraine treatment leads to suppression of the serotonergic/norepinephrinergic  endogenous antinociceptive system in the upper brain stem, with facilitation of the trigeminal nociceptive process via up-regulation of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).This increase in CGRP at the end of peripheral nerve terminals in the trigeminovascular system may facilitate pain transmission. An increase in cortical CGRP may cause cortical spreading depression: a wave of excitement traveling through the cortex, followed by a wave of electrical depression seems to cause headache.  

Good, effective prevention often helps avoid MOH; medications such as topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies or some type of local nerve block have improved MOH in patients, but detoxification is usually necessary is some patients. 

Monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor (CGRP-R), given by subcutaneous or intravenous injection or small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists given orally (gepants), seem to be able to treat MOH in some patients without a detoxification. This has been best demonstrated in the monoclonal antibody group, but there is some evidence showing that it may also occur with gepants. These treatments seem to work even when patients are overusing acute care medications; this helps some patients to self-detoxify at their own pace, which is easier for both the patient and the doctor.

Currently, there are 4 monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP-R. Erenumab is the only completely human one and the only antibody that blocks the CGRP receptor to prevent the CGRP ligand from docking and exerting its effect. The other 3 (fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) are humanized monoclonal antibodies that selectively bind to the CGRP ligand, preventing it from docking on its receptor.  Patients started on the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor usually have fewer headaches in the first week or two of therapy, and this helps make the self-detox easier for the patient. 

Further, substantial data have shown that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches and reduces the need for patients to take acute medication. OnabotulinumtoxinA is currently the only medication approved for preventive treatment of chronic migraine; it has long-term safety data available and has reported efficacy lasting for up to 3 years when given in multiple injection sites every 3 months. Interestingly, although topiramate is used as a preventive medication, a recent study comparing erenumab vs topiramate for reducing monthly migraine days (MMD) showed that erenumab outperformed topiramate with a 50% reduction in MMD, and with fewer reported adverse events.

We are just starting to learn about some other potential cellular mechanisms that could be causing MOH in patients; these data could help create new and improved therapies for treating and possibly preventing MOH in the future. Patient outcomes could also be improved by encouraging the inclusion of MOH as part of a continuing education program for physicians who could potentially be treating new patients presenting with MOH. 

Medication overuse headache, previously known as rebound headache or medication-induced headache, may be caused by the frequent or excessive use of various acute care medications. When these medications are used too frequently, they can cause headaches rather than relieving them. (Some headache specialists feel that MOH is the result of recurring severe headaches, and the patients’ overuse of medications to relieve them.) These medications, some of which are painkillers or analgesics, include over-the-counter products such as acetaminophen, aspirin, and anti-inflammatories, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, ergots opioids, opioids, and barbiturates. The one category of acute care medication that does not seem to cause MOH is the gepants, such as rimegepant and ubrogepant.

MOH is the fourth most common headache disorder. It is defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) as a headache present 15 days per month, evolving from regular use of strong acute medication (10 or more days of triptans, ergotamines, butalbital medications, opioids, or combination medications or 15 or more days per month of simple analgesics such as aspirin, acetaminophen, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories) for 3 months. 

Patients are usually not aware they have MOH, and this is the most problematic aspect of the condition. Patients do not realize that the medicine they are taking is making their headaches worse. It can be difficult to explain to the patient exactly what is going on with MOH, and why they are doing the wrong thing by taking the very medication that was prescribed by their doctor to stop a migraine attack. Many doctors do not fully understand MOH either, which can make it difficult to treat patients with this type of headache; therefore, it is imperative to educate both doctors and patients on the causes and treatments of MOH.

One of the most important facets of treating MOH traditionally has been the process of detoxifying patients from their overused medication by gradually or precipitously withdrawing the offending medication. There is variability in how detoxification can be accomplished. Some of my patients stopped medications abruptly and experienced very bad headaches. Others tried reducing dosages on their own and reported experiencing the worst headaches of their lives—some of which lasted for a few weeks. I have found that if patients can endure 2 to 3 weeks of detox, they start to feel better. But because the headaches can worsen before they get better, patients understandably try to avoid the detoxification process. 

I start patients on preventive medicine, then slowly increase it to an effective dose, and have them come back in a month for an evaluation. I then have them gradually reduce, but not completely stop, the pain medication before they return. Once I feel their preventive medication is at a therapeutic level, I have them begin a slow detox. After a month of preventive medication, there is a reasonable chance that headaches will start to decrease and be less severe. I tell them that if their headache is less severe try to avoid taking the medicine that they were overusing to prevent perpetuating the MOH.

One plausible physiologic mechanism behind MOH is that chronic exposure to acute care migraine treatment leads to suppression of the serotonergic/norepinephrinergic  endogenous antinociceptive system in the upper brain stem, with facilitation of the trigeminal nociceptive process via up-regulation of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).This increase in CGRP at the end of peripheral nerve terminals in the trigeminovascular system may facilitate pain transmission. An increase in cortical CGRP may cause cortical spreading depression: a wave of excitement traveling through the cortex, followed by a wave of electrical depression seems to cause headache.  

Good, effective prevention often helps avoid MOH; medications such as topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies or some type of local nerve block have improved MOH in patients, but detoxification is usually necessary is some patients. 

Monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor (CGRP-R), given by subcutaneous or intravenous injection or small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists given orally (gepants), seem to be able to treat MOH in some patients without a detoxification. This has been best demonstrated in the monoclonal antibody group, but there is some evidence showing that it may also occur with gepants. These treatments seem to work even when patients are overusing acute care medications; this helps some patients to self-detoxify at their own pace, which is easier for both the patient and the doctor.

Currently, there are 4 monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP-R. Erenumab is the only completely human one and the only antibody that blocks the CGRP receptor to prevent the CGRP ligand from docking and exerting its effect. The other 3 (fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) are humanized monoclonal antibodies that selectively bind to the CGRP ligand, preventing it from docking on its receptor.  Patients started on the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor usually have fewer headaches in the first week or two of therapy, and this helps make the self-detox easier for the patient. 

Further, substantial data have shown that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches and reduces the need for patients to take acute medication. OnabotulinumtoxinA is currently the only medication approved for preventive treatment of chronic migraine; it has long-term safety data available and has reported efficacy lasting for up to 3 years when given in multiple injection sites every 3 months. Interestingly, although topiramate is used as a preventive medication, a recent study comparing erenumab vs topiramate for reducing monthly migraine days (MMD) showed that erenumab outperformed topiramate with a 50% reduction in MMD, and with fewer reported adverse events.

We are just starting to learn about some other potential cellular mechanisms that could be causing MOH in patients; these data could help create new and improved therapies for treating and possibly preventing MOH in the future. Patient outcomes could also be improved by encouraging the inclusion of MOH as part of a continuing education program for physicians who could potentially be treating new patients presenting with MOH. 

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

This patient was experiencing a flare of his psoriasis. Three factors contributed to the flare: noncompliance with his treatment regimen, decreased sunlight in the winter, and his lithium therapy. Though carcinogenic, certain wavelengths of UV light are beneficial for psoriasis, and the shorter days of winter can cause flaring of psoriasis (or relative flaring). In addition, lithium—the most effective therapy for this patient’s bipolar disorder—can worsen psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder with characteristic skin findings that include well-demarcated micaceous plaques, nail pitting, and sometimes tendon pain and inflammatory arthritis. Severity can range from small, thin plaques that are intermittently noticeable on the elbows or knees to widespread ash-like plaques covering most of the body.

Good topical choices for facial skin include hydrocortisone 2.5% cream or desonide 0.05%. Nonsteroidal topical therapies that are safe for facial skin include tacrolimus 0.1% ointment or pimecrolimus 1% cream.¹ These options may be used twice daily until the disease is controlled.

In many cases (as in this one), the patient’s previous psoriasis outbreaks could not be controlled with topical therapy alone. The patient had not responded to a previous methotrexate regimen, and more recently had been clear for several years on systemic ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody. Dosed every 12 weeks, or sometimes every 8 weeks, ustekinumab is given by subcutaneous injection, usually in the abdomen, through normal skin. Ustekinumab was recently approved for home use with just 4 injections per year for maintenance therapy. However, the infrequency of the injections sometimes leads to noncompliance, as occurred with this patient. He had missed 2 doses since taking over his own dosing regimen.

Ultimately, the patient’s flare resolved when he was transitioned back to in-office treatment with ustekinumab.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

This patient was experiencing a flare of his psoriasis. Three factors contributed to the flare: noncompliance with his treatment regimen, decreased sunlight in the winter, and his lithium therapy. Though carcinogenic, certain wavelengths of UV light are beneficial for psoriasis, and the shorter days of winter can cause flaring of psoriasis (or relative flaring). In addition, lithium—the most effective therapy for this patient’s bipolar disorder—can worsen psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder with characteristic skin findings that include well-demarcated micaceous plaques, nail pitting, and sometimes tendon pain and inflammatory arthritis. Severity can range from small, thin plaques that are intermittently noticeable on the elbows or knees to widespread ash-like plaques covering most of the body.

Good topical choices for facial skin include hydrocortisone 2.5% cream or desonide 0.05%. Nonsteroidal topical therapies that are safe for facial skin include tacrolimus 0.1% ointment or pimecrolimus 1% cream.¹ These options may be used twice daily until the disease is controlled.

In many cases (as in this one), the patient’s previous psoriasis outbreaks could not be controlled with topical therapy alone. The patient had not responded to a previous methotrexate regimen, and more recently had been clear for several years on systemic ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody. Dosed every 12 weeks, or sometimes every 8 weeks, ustekinumab is given by subcutaneous injection, usually in the abdomen, through normal skin. Ustekinumab was recently approved for home use with just 4 injections per year for maintenance therapy. However, the infrequency of the injections sometimes leads to noncompliance, as occurred with this patient. He had missed 2 doses since taking over his own dosing regimen.

Ultimately, the patient’s flare resolved when he was transitioned back to in-office treatment with ustekinumab.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

This patient was experiencing a flare of his psoriasis. Three factors contributed to the flare: noncompliance with his treatment regimen, decreased sunlight in the winter, and his lithium therapy. Though carcinogenic, certain wavelengths of UV light are beneficial for psoriasis, and the shorter days of winter can cause flaring of psoriasis (or relative flaring). In addition, lithium—the most effective therapy for this patient’s bipolar disorder—can worsen psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder with characteristic skin findings that include well-demarcated micaceous plaques, nail pitting, and sometimes tendon pain and inflammatory arthritis. Severity can range from small, thin plaques that are intermittently noticeable on the elbows or knees to widespread ash-like plaques covering most of the body.

Good topical choices for facial skin include hydrocortisone 2.5% cream or desonide 0.05%. Nonsteroidal topical therapies that are safe for facial skin include tacrolimus 0.1% ointment or pimecrolimus 1% cream.¹ These options may be used twice daily until the disease is controlled.

In many cases (as in this one), the patient’s previous psoriasis outbreaks could not be controlled with topical therapy alone. The patient had not responded to a previous methotrexate regimen, and more recently had been clear for several years on systemic ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody. Dosed every 12 weeks, or sometimes every 8 weeks, ustekinumab is given by subcutaneous injection, usually in the abdomen, through normal skin. Ustekinumab was recently approved for home use with just 4 injections per year for maintenance therapy. However, the infrequency of the injections sometimes leads to noncompliance, as occurred with this patient. He had missed 2 doses since taking over his own dosing regimen.

Ultimately, the patient’s flare resolved when he was transitioned back to in-office treatment with ustekinumab.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

How effective are the COVID-19 vaccines, third time around? Researchers compared 2 large groups of veterans to find out how well a third dose protected against documented infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and COVID-19–related hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death.

The research, published in Nature, used electronic health records of 65,196 veterans who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 65,196 who received mRNA-1273 (Moderna). They chose to study the 16 weeks between October 20, 2021 and February 8, 2022, which included both Delta- and Omicron-variant waves.

During the follow-up (median, 77 days), 2994 COVID-19 infections were documented, of which 200 were detected as symptomatic, 194 required hospitalization, and 52 required ICU admission. Twenty-two patients died.

In a previous head-to-head trial comparing breakthrough COVID-19 outcomes after the first doses of the 2 vaccines (given when the Alpha and Delta variants were predominant), the researchers had found a low risk of documented infection and severe outcomes, but lower for the Moderna vaccine. They note that few head-to-head comparisons have been made of third-dose effectiveness.

As expected, in this trial, the researchers found a “nearly identical” pattern for the risk of the 2 vaccine groups. Although the risks for all of the measured outcomes over 16 weeks were low for both vaccines ≤ 4% for documented infection and < 0.03% for death in each group—those veterans who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had an excess of 45 documented infections and 11 hospitalizations per 10,000 persons, compared with the Moderna group.  The Pfizer-BioNTech group also had a higher risk of documented infection over 9 weeks of follow-up, during which an Omicron-variant predominated.

Given the high effectiveness of a third dose of both vaccines, either vaccine is strongly recommended, the researchers conclude. They point to “evidence of clear and comparable benefits” for the most severe outcomes: The difference in estimated 16-week risk of death between the 2 groups was two-thousandths of 1 %.

They add that, while the differences in estimated risk for less severe outcomes between the 2 groups were small on the absolute scale, they may be meaningful when considering the population scale at which these vaccines are deployed.

How effective are the COVID-19 vaccines, third time around? Researchers compared 2 large groups of veterans to find out how well a third dose protected against documented infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and COVID-19–related hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death.

The research, published in Nature, used electronic health records of 65,196 veterans who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 65,196 who received mRNA-1273 (Moderna). They chose to study the 16 weeks between October 20, 2021 and February 8, 2022, which included both Delta- and Omicron-variant waves.

During the follow-up (median, 77 days), 2994 COVID-19 infections were documented, of which 200 were detected as symptomatic, 194 required hospitalization, and 52 required ICU admission. Twenty-two patients died.

In a previous head-to-head trial comparing breakthrough COVID-19 outcomes after the first doses of the 2 vaccines (given when the Alpha and Delta variants were predominant), the researchers had found a low risk of documented infection and severe outcomes, but lower for the Moderna vaccine. They note that few head-to-head comparisons have been made of third-dose effectiveness.

As expected, in this trial, the researchers found a “nearly identical” pattern for the risk of the 2 vaccine groups. Although the risks for all of the measured outcomes over 16 weeks were low for both vaccines ≤ 4% for documented infection and < 0.03% for death in each group—those veterans who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had an excess of 45 documented infections and 11 hospitalizations per 10,000 persons, compared with the Moderna group.  The Pfizer-BioNTech group also had a higher risk of documented infection over 9 weeks of follow-up, during which an Omicron-variant predominated.

Given the high effectiveness of a third dose of both vaccines, either vaccine is strongly recommended, the researchers conclude. They point to “evidence of clear and comparable benefits” for the most severe outcomes: The difference in estimated 16-week risk of death between the 2 groups was two-thousandths of 1 %.

They add that, while the differences in estimated risk for less severe outcomes between the 2 groups were small on the absolute scale, they may be meaningful when considering the population scale at which these vaccines are deployed.

How effective are the COVID-19 vaccines, third time around? Researchers compared 2 large groups of veterans to find out how well a third dose protected against documented infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and COVID-19–related hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death.

The research, published in Nature, used electronic health records of 65,196 veterans who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 65,196 who received mRNA-1273 (Moderna). They chose to study the 16 weeks between October 20, 2021 and February 8, 2022, which included both Delta- and Omicron-variant waves.

During the follow-up (median, 77 days), 2994 COVID-19 infections were documented, of which 200 were detected as symptomatic, 194 required hospitalization, and 52 required ICU admission. Twenty-two patients died.

In a previous head-to-head trial comparing breakthrough COVID-19 outcomes after the first doses of the 2 vaccines (given when the Alpha and Delta variants were predominant), the researchers had found a low risk of documented infection and severe outcomes, but lower for the Moderna vaccine. They note that few head-to-head comparisons have been made of third-dose effectiveness.

As expected, in this trial, the researchers found a “nearly identical” pattern for the risk of the 2 vaccine groups. Although the risks for all of the measured outcomes over 16 weeks were low for both vaccines ≤ 4% for documented infection and < 0.03% for death in each group—those veterans who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had an excess of 45 documented infections and 11 hospitalizations per 10,000 persons, compared with the Moderna group.  The Pfizer-BioNTech group also had a higher risk of documented infection over 9 weeks of follow-up, during which an Omicron-variant predominated.

Given the high effectiveness of a third dose of both vaccines, either vaccine is strongly recommended, the researchers conclude. They point to “evidence of clear and comparable benefits” for the most severe outcomes: The difference in estimated 16-week risk of death between the 2 groups was two-thousandths of 1 %.

They add that, while the differences in estimated risk for less severe outcomes between the 2 groups were small on the absolute scale, they may be meaningful when considering the population scale at which these vaccines are deployed.

Black veterans are less likely to have their benefits claims processed and paid than are their White peers because of systemic problems within the US Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a lawsuit filed against the agency.

“A Black veteran who served honorably can walk into the VA, file a disability claim, and be at a significantly higher likelihood of having that claim denied,” said Adam Henderson, a student working with the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, one of several groups connected to the lawsuit.

“The VA has denied countless meritorious applications of Black veterans and thus deprived them and their families of the support that they are entitled to.”

The suit, filed in federal court by the clinic on behalf of Vietnam War veteran Conley Monk Jr., asks for “redress for the harms caused by the failure of VA staff and leaders to administer these benefits programs in a manner free from racial discrimination against Black veterans.”

In a press conference announcing the lawsuit, the effort received backing from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Connecticut) who called it an “unacceptable” situation.

“Black veterans are denied benefits at a very significantly disproportionate rate,” he said. “We know the results. We want to know the reason why.”

The suit stems from an analysis of VA claims records released by the department following an earlier legal action. Between 2001 and 2020, the average denial rate for disability claims filed for Black veterans was 29.5%, significantly above the 24.2% for White veterans.

Attorneys allege the problems date back even further and that VA officials should have known about the racial disparities in the system from previous complaints.

“The negligence of VA leadership, and their failure to train, supervise, monitor and instruct agency officials to take steps to identify and correct racial disparities, led to systematic benefits obstruction for Black veterans,” the suit states.

Monk is a Black disabled Marine Corps veteran who previously sued the military to overturn his less-than-honorable military discharge due to complications from undiagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder.

He was subsequently granted access to a host of veterans benefits but not to retroactive payouts for claims he was denied in the 1970s.

“They didn’t fully compensate me or my family,” he said. “I wasn’t able to give my kids my educational benefits. We should have been receiving checks while they were growing up.”

Along with potential past benefits for Monk, individuals involved with the lawsuit said the move could force the VA to reassess thousands of other unfairly dismissed cases. “For decades [the US government] has allowed racially discriminatory practices to obstruct Black veterans from easily accessing veterans housing, education, and health care benefits with wide-reaching economic consequences for Black veterans and their families,” said Richard Brookshire, executive director of the Black Veterans Project.

“This lawsuit reckons with the shameful history of racism by the Department of Veteran Affairs and seeks to redress long-standing improprieties reverberating across generations of Black military service.”

In a statement, VA press secretary Terrence Hayes did not directly respond to the lawsuit but noted that “throughout history, there have been unacceptable disparities in both VA benefits decisions and military discharge status due to racism, which have wrongly left Black veterans without access to VA care and benefits.”

“We are actively working to right these wrongs, and we will stop at nothing to ensure that all Black veterans get the VA services they have earned and deserve,” he said. “We are currently studying racial disparities in benefits claims decisions, and we will publish the results of that study as soon as they are available.”

Hayes said the department has already begun targeted outreach to Black veterans to help them with claims and is “taking steps to ensure that our claims process combats institutional racism, rather than perpetuating it.”

Black veterans are less likely to have their benefits claims processed and paid than are their White peers because of systemic problems within the US Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a lawsuit filed against the agency.

“A Black veteran who served honorably can walk into the VA, file a disability claim, and be at a significantly higher likelihood of having that claim denied,” said Adam Henderson, a student working with the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, one of several groups connected to the lawsuit.

“The VA has denied countless meritorious applications of Black veterans and thus deprived them and their families of the support that they are entitled to.”

The suit, filed in federal court by the clinic on behalf of Vietnam War veteran Conley Monk Jr., asks for “redress for the harms caused by the failure of VA staff and leaders to administer these benefits programs in a manner free from racial discrimination against Black veterans.”

In a press conference announcing the lawsuit, the effort received backing from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Connecticut) who called it an “unacceptable” situation.

“Black veterans are denied benefits at a very significantly disproportionate rate,” he said. “We know the results. We want to know the reason why.”

The suit stems from an analysis of VA claims records released by the department following an earlier legal action. Between 2001 and 2020, the average denial rate for disability claims filed for Black veterans was 29.5%, significantly above the 24.2% for White veterans.

Attorneys allege the problems date back even further and that VA officials should have known about the racial disparities in the system from previous complaints.

“The negligence of VA leadership, and their failure to train, supervise, monitor and instruct agency officials to take steps to identify and correct racial disparities, led to systematic benefits obstruction for Black veterans,” the suit states.

Monk is a Black disabled Marine Corps veteran who previously sued the military to overturn his less-than-honorable military discharge due to complications from undiagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder.

He was subsequently granted access to a host of veterans benefits but not to retroactive payouts for claims he was denied in the 1970s.

“They didn’t fully compensate me or my family,” he said. “I wasn’t able to give my kids my educational benefits. We should have been receiving checks while they were growing up.”

Along with potential past benefits for Monk, individuals involved with the lawsuit said the move could force the VA to reassess thousands of other unfairly dismissed cases. “For decades [the US government] has allowed racially discriminatory practices to obstruct Black veterans from easily accessing veterans housing, education, and health care benefits with wide-reaching economic consequences for Black veterans and their families,” said Richard Brookshire, executive director of the Black Veterans Project.

“This lawsuit reckons with the shameful history of racism by the Department of Veteran Affairs and seeks to redress long-standing improprieties reverberating across generations of Black military service.”

In a statement, VA press secretary Terrence Hayes did not directly respond to the lawsuit but noted that “throughout history, there have been unacceptable disparities in both VA benefits decisions and military discharge status due to racism, which have wrongly left Black veterans without access to VA care and benefits.”

“We are actively working to right these wrongs, and we will stop at nothing to ensure that all Black veterans get the VA services they have earned and deserve,” he said. “We are currently studying racial disparities in benefits claims decisions, and we will publish the results of that study as soon as they are available.”

Hayes said the department has already begun targeted outreach to Black veterans to help them with claims and is “taking steps to ensure that our claims process combats institutional racism, rather than perpetuating it.”

Black veterans are less likely to have their benefits claims processed and paid than are their White peers because of systemic problems within the US Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a lawsuit filed against the agency.

“A Black veteran who served honorably can walk into the VA, file a disability claim, and be at a significantly higher likelihood of having that claim denied,” said Adam Henderson, a student working with the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, one of several groups connected to the lawsuit.

“The VA has denied countless meritorious applications of Black veterans and thus deprived them and their families of the support that they are entitled to.”

The suit, filed in federal court by the clinic on behalf of Vietnam War veteran Conley Monk Jr., asks for “redress for the harms caused by the failure of VA staff and leaders to administer these benefits programs in a manner free from racial discrimination against Black veterans.”

In a press conference announcing the lawsuit, the effort received backing from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Connecticut) who called it an “unacceptable” situation.

“Black veterans are denied benefits at a very significantly disproportionate rate,” he said. “We know the results. We want to know the reason why.”

The suit stems from an analysis of VA claims records released by the department following an earlier legal action. Between 2001 and 2020, the average denial rate for disability claims filed for Black veterans was 29.5%, significantly above the 24.2% for White veterans.

Attorneys allege the problems date back even further and that VA officials should have known about the racial disparities in the system from previous complaints.

“The negligence of VA leadership, and their failure to train, supervise, monitor and instruct agency officials to take steps to identify and correct racial disparities, led to systematic benefits obstruction for Black veterans,” the suit states.

Monk is a Black disabled Marine Corps veteran who previously sued the military to overturn his less-than-honorable military discharge due to complications from undiagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder.

He was subsequently granted access to a host of veterans benefits but not to retroactive payouts for claims he was denied in the 1970s.

“They didn’t fully compensate me or my family,” he said. “I wasn’t able to give my kids my educational benefits. We should have been receiving checks while they were growing up.”

Along with potential past benefits for Monk, individuals involved with the lawsuit said the move could force the VA to reassess thousands of other unfairly dismissed cases. “For decades [the US government] has allowed racially discriminatory practices to obstruct Black veterans from easily accessing veterans housing, education, and health care benefits with wide-reaching economic consequences for Black veterans and their families,” said Richard Brookshire, executive director of the Black Veterans Project.

“This lawsuit reckons with the shameful history of racism by the Department of Veteran Affairs and seeks to redress long-standing improprieties reverberating across generations of Black military service.”

In a statement, VA press secretary Terrence Hayes did not directly respond to the lawsuit but noted that “throughout history, there have been unacceptable disparities in both VA benefits decisions and military discharge status due to racism, which have wrongly left Black veterans without access to VA care and benefits.”

“We are actively working to right these wrongs, and we will stop at nothing to ensure that all Black veterans get the VA services they have earned and deserve,” he said. “We are currently studying racial disparities in benefits claims decisions, and we will publish the results of that study as soon as they are available.”

Hayes said the department has already begun targeted outreach to Black veterans to help them with claims and is “taking steps to ensure that our claims process combats institutional racism, rather than perpetuating it.”

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.