Article

• PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH TREATMENT
• REDUCING ITCH
• BURDEN OF DISEASE IN BLACK PATIENTS
• BATHING RECOMMENDATIONS

Read More

• PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH TREATMENT
• REDUCING ITCH
• BURDEN OF DISEASE IN BLACK PATIENTS
• BATHING RECOMMENDATIONS

Read More

• PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH TREATMENT
• REDUCING ITCH
• BURDEN OF DISEASE IN BLACK PATIENTS
• BATHING RECOMMENDATIONS

Read More

ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “e”).

DISCUSSION

Most cases of dermatomyositis, which the patient’s presentation and lab results suggested, require nerve conduction studies, a check of serum aldolase levels, and skin and muscle biopsies to complete the work-up. However, the arrival at a diagnosis is only the first step.

Patients with dermatomyositis, particularly those older than 60, require evaluation for occult malignancy. There is evidence that the body’s immune response to the cancer is what drives the disease process. Hence the need for the studies listed, looking for breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers especially.

Dermatomyositis is thought to be an inflammatory myopathy, possibly driven by autoimmune factors. It is rare (about 1 to 22 per 100,000) and affects women more than men.

The “sunburn” rash is typical, especially on the face, chest, and dorsal hands, and usually clears completely when the cancer is found and cured. Other common findings include elevated creatine kinase, hand rashes (known as Gottron’s papules), and dystrophic calcification in skin and/or joints.

TREATMENT

Aside from addressing a possible malignancy, treatment of dermatomyositis usually starts with glucocorticoids, eventually tapered and replaced by steroid-sparing agents such as azathioprine or cyclosporine. These drugs have dramatically increased the chances of survival and eventual cure.

It’s common for the photosensitivity to persist long after the myositis has resolved, which is why sunscreen and other sun-protective measures are advised.

ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “e”).

DISCUSSION

Most cases of dermatomyositis, which the patient’s presentation and lab results suggested, require nerve conduction studies, a check of serum aldolase levels, and skin and muscle biopsies to complete the work-up. However, the arrival at a diagnosis is only the first step.

Patients with dermatomyositis, particularly those older than 60, require evaluation for occult malignancy. There is evidence that the body’s immune response to the cancer is what drives the disease process. Hence the need for the studies listed, looking for breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers especially.

Dermatomyositis is thought to be an inflammatory myopathy, possibly driven by autoimmune factors. It is rare (about 1 to 22 per 100,000) and affects women more than men.

The “sunburn” rash is typical, especially on the face, chest, and dorsal hands, and usually clears completely when the cancer is found and cured. Other common findings include elevated creatine kinase, hand rashes (known as Gottron’s papules), and dystrophic calcification in skin and/or joints.

TREATMENT

Aside from addressing a possible malignancy, treatment of dermatomyositis usually starts with glucocorticoids, eventually tapered and replaced by steroid-sparing agents such as azathioprine or cyclosporine. These drugs have dramatically increased the chances of survival and eventual cure.

It’s common for the photosensitivity to persist long after the myositis has resolved, which is why sunscreen and other sun-protective measures are advised.

ANSWER

The correct answer is all of the above (choice “e”).

DISCUSSION

Most cases of dermatomyositis, which the patient’s presentation and lab results suggested, require nerve conduction studies, a check of serum aldolase levels, and skin and muscle biopsies to complete the work-up. However, the arrival at a diagnosis is only the first step.

Patients with dermatomyositis, particularly those older than 60, require evaluation for occult malignancy. There is evidence that the body’s immune response to the cancer is what drives the disease process. Hence the need for the studies listed, looking for breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers especially.

Dermatomyositis is thought to be an inflammatory myopathy, possibly driven by autoimmune factors. It is rare (about 1 to 22 per 100,000) and affects women more than men.

The “sunburn” rash is typical, especially on the face, chest, and dorsal hands, and usually clears completely when the cancer is found and cured. Other common findings include elevated creatine kinase, hand rashes (known as Gottron’s papules), and dystrophic calcification in skin and/or joints.

TREATMENT

Aside from addressing a possible malignancy, treatment of dermatomyositis usually starts with glucocorticoids, eventually tapered and replaced by steroid-sparing agents such as azathioprine or cyclosporine. These drugs have dramatically increased the chances of survival and eventual cure.

It’s common for the photosensitivity to persist long after the myositis has resolved, which is why sunscreen and other sun-protective measures are advised.

What are the characteristic mucocutaneous lesions of primary, secondary, and tertiary syphilis?

Continue to answer...

The characteristic mucosal lesion of primary syphilis is the painless chancre. The usual mucocutaneous manifestations of secondary syphilis are maculopapular lesions (red or violet in color) on the palms and soles, mucous patches on the oral membranes, and condyloma lata on the genitalia. The classic mucocutaneous lesion of tertiary syphilis is the gumma.

Other serious manifestations of advanced syphilis include central nervous system abnormalities, such as tabes dorsalis, the Argyll Robertson pupil, and dementia, and cardiac abnormalities, such as aortitis, which can lead to a dissecting aneurysm of the aortic root. (Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64[RR3]:1-137.)

What are the characteristic mucocutaneous lesions of primary, secondary, and tertiary syphilis?

Continue to answer...

The characteristic mucosal lesion of primary syphilis is the painless chancre. The usual mucocutaneous manifestations of secondary syphilis are maculopapular lesions (red or violet in color) on the palms and soles, mucous patches on the oral membranes, and condyloma lata on the genitalia. The classic mucocutaneous lesion of tertiary syphilis is the gumma.

Other serious manifestations of advanced syphilis include central nervous system abnormalities, such as tabes dorsalis, the Argyll Robertson pupil, and dementia, and cardiac abnormalities, such as aortitis, which can lead to a dissecting aneurysm of the aortic root. (Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64[RR3]:1-137.)

What are the characteristic mucocutaneous lesions of primary, secondary, and tertiary syphilis?

Continue to answer...

The characteristic mucosal lesion of primary syphilis is the painless chancre. The usual mucocutaneous manifestations of secondary syphilis are maculopapular lesions (red or violet in color) on the palms and soles, mucous patches on the oral membranes, and condyloma lata on the genitalia. The classic mucocutaneous lesion of tertiary syphilis is the gumma.

Other serious manifestations of advanced syphilis include central nervous system abnormalities, such as tabes dorsalis, the Argyll Robertson pupil, and dementia, and cardiac abnormalities, such as aortitis, which can lead to a dissecting aneurysm of the aortic root. (Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64[RR3]:1-137.)

CASE Pregnant woman with dysuria and suprapubic pain

A 25-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks of gestation requests evaluation because of the acute onset of frequent urination, dysuria, urination hesitancy, and suprapubic pain on the morning following intercourse. She has not experienced similar symptoms in the past. On physical examination, her temperature is 38 °C, pulse is 96 beats per minute, respirations are 18 per minute, and blood pressure is 100/76 mm Hg. She has no urethral discharge but is tender to palpation in the suprapubic area.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests would be of greatest value in confirming the diagnosis?
• What is the most appropriate treatment for this patient?

Meet our perpetrator

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections that occur during pregnancy. They may take one of 4 forms: acute urethritis, asymptomatic bacteriuria, acute cystitis, and acute pyelonephritis.¹ The first 3 conditions usually are straightforward to diagnose and treat, and they usually do not cause major problems for the mother or fetus. The latter, however, can cause serious complications that pose risk to the mother and fetus.

This article will review the microbiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of these 4 disorders in pregnancy. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures to avoid adverse effects on the mother and fetus from antimicrobial agents.

Acute urethritis

Acute urethritis can be caused by low concentrations of coliform organisms in the lower urinary tract, but it usually is secondary to infection by Neisseria gonorrhea or Chlamydia trachomatis. In most prenatal populations, the prevalence of one or the other of these 2 infections is approximately 5%.¹

The most common clinical manifestations of acute urethritis are a purulent urethral discharge, increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy. The diagnosis most easily is confirmed by obtaining a specimen of urethral discharge or urine and evaluating the sample by a nucleic acid amplification test for both gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Antibiotic therapy is preferred. The current recommended treatment for gonococcal urethritis is a single intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone 500 mg. If the patient prefers oral therapy, she can receive cefixime 800 mg in a single dose. For patients with an allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, the alternative regimen is gentamicin 240 mg in a single intramuscular injection, combined with oral azithromycin in a single 2,000-mg dose. For treatment of chlamydia in pregnancy, the recommended therapy is azithromycin 1,000 mg in a single oral dose.² A test of cure should be performed within 4 weeks of treatment.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is the most common UTI in women. Approximately 5% to 8% of all sexually active women have ASB. The condition is not unique to pregnancy; it is associated primarily with the assumption of coital activity. In point of fact, the ASB typically precedes pregnancy by several years.¹

The principal pathogens responsible for ASB are shown in the FIGURE. Over 80% of first-time infections are secondary to Escherichia coli. As more recurrent episodes occur, the other Gram-negative bacilli (ie, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus species) become more prevalent. The 3 major Gram-positive cocci that cause UTIs are enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococci.^1,3,4

In nonpregnant women, ASB usually remains completely asymptomatic, and ascending infections only rarely occur. In pregnancy, however, urinary stasis is present due to the effects of progesterone on ureteral peristalsis and because of pressure on the ureters (particularly the right) by the expanding gravid uterus. As a result, ascending infection may occur in approximately 20% of patients if the lower tract infection is not identified and treated adequately.¹

Clean-catch specimens and treatment

The standard criterion for the diagnosis of ASB is a urine culture that shows greater than 100,000 colonies/mL of a recognized uropathogen.¹ The urine usually is obtained as a midstream, clean-catch specimen, and the test should be performed at the time of the first prenatal appointment. Once identified, ASB should be treated promptly with one of the antibiotics listed in the TABLE. Nitrofurantoin monohydrate macrocrystals (nitrofurantoin) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be avoided in the first trimester unless no other drug is active against the identified microorganism.

Both have been linked to teratogenic fetal effects.^5-8 The defects associated with the former drug include eye abnormalities, heart defects, and facial clefts. The abnormalities associated with the latter include neural tube defects, heart defects, choanal atresia, and diaphragmatic hernia. In the first trimester, amoxicillin and cephalexin are reasonable choices for treatment. As a general rule, a 3-day course of antibiotics will be effective for eradicating the initial episode of ASB. For recurrent infections, a 7- to 10-day course is indicated.^1,3,4

Acute cystitis

The microbiology of acute cystitis essentially is identical to that of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The usual clinical manifestations include increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy in association with suprapubic discomfort and a lowgrade fever.

The diagnosis can be quickly confirmed by testing the urine pH and assessing for leukocyte esterase and nitrites. If both the leukocyte esterase and nitrite test are positive, the probability of a positive urine culture is high; however, the nitrite test can be falsely negative if the urine has been incubating in the bladder for only a short period of time or if a Gram-positive organism is responsible for the infection. The urine pH is particularly helpful if it is elevated in the range of 8. This finding strongly is associated with a Proteus infection.^1,9-11

Continue to: In-out catheterization is ideal...

 

 

In-out catheterization is ideal

I recommend that the urine sample be obtained by an in-out catheterization in symptomatic patients. This technique eliminates any concern about contamination of the specimen by vaginal organisms and provides a “pure” sample for culture. When urine is obtained by this method, the criterion for a positive culture result is greater than 100 colonies/mL.³ If the urine is obtained by the midstream clean-catch method, the cutoff for a positive culture remains greater than 100,000 colonies/mL.^1,3

Unless the clinician is working in a low resource environment, the culture should always be obtained even though the patient will be empirically treated prior to the culture result being available. The culture can be helpful in guiding changes in antibiotic therapy if the initial response to treatment is poor.

In the first trimester, empiric treatment should be with amoxicillin or cephalexin. Beyond the first trimester, nitrofurantoin should be the drug of choice. This antibiotic is inexpensive and well-tolerated. It has limited effect on the bowel or vaginal flora and is unlikely to cause a secondary yeast infection or diarrhea. If a Proteus infection is suspected, however, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/ 160 mg) should be used because this organism is not susceptible to nitrofurantoin. The duration of therapy should be a minimum of 3 days with the first infection and 7 to 10 days with recurrent infections.^1,3,4

Acute pyelonephritis

Pyelonephritis may develop de novo or may result from inadequate treatment of lower urinary tract infection. The right kidney is affected in approximately 75% of cases because the right ureter is more subject to compression by the gravid uterus. The principal pathogen is E coli, although Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species also are of importance. Other aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, such as Pseudomonas and Serratia species, are much less common unless the patient is immunosuppressed or has an indwelling catheter.¹

The characteristic clinical manifestations of acute pyelonephritis are high fever (>39 °C), shaking chills, nausea and vomiting, and flank pain and tenderness. Increased frequency of urination and dysuria also may be present. In addition, pyelonephritis may be accompanied by preterm labor, sepsis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The diagnosis is established by clinical findings, urinalysis, and urine culture. The urine specimen should be obtained by an in-out catheterization, analyzed initially by dipstick for nitrites and leukocyte esterase, and submitted for culture and sensitivity. Blood cultures should be obtained, and chest radiography should be performed if ARDS is suspected.

Empiric treatment should be started as soon as these initial diagnostic tests are completed. Many women in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy will not be seriously ill and may be treated as outpatients. I recommend an initial dose of intramuscular ceftriaxone 2 g followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (875 mg twice daily) for a total of 10 days. If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) twice daily would be an excellent alternative.^1,12

Treating seriously ill patients

Patients who are more seriously ill, particularly in the second half of pregnancy when preterm labor is more likely, should be hospitalized for supportive care (intravenous [IV] fluids, antipyretics, anti-emetics) and treatment with parenteral antibiotics.^1,12 At our medical center, IV ceftriaxone (2 g every 24 hours), is the agent of choice. It has a convenient dosing schedule and covers almost all of the potential uropathogens. If an unusually drug-resistant organism is suspected, gentamicin or aztreonam can be combined with ceftriaxone to ensure complete coverage (see dosage recommendations below).

If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, alternative IV agents include:

• trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (8–10 mg/kg/d in 2 divided doses)
• gentamicin (5 mg/kg of ideal body weight every 24 hours)
• aztreonam (2 g every 8 hours)

Parenteral antibiotics should be administered until the patient has been afebrile and asymptomatic for 24 hours. At this point, oral antibiotics, based on sensitivity testing, can be started, and the patient can be discharged to complete a 10-day course of therapy.

Continue to: Treatment failure...

Treatment failure

Obstetric patients with pyelonephritis usually respond promptly to antibiotics. More than 75% will be afebrile within 48 hours, and more than 90% will be afebrile within 72 hours. When patients fail to respond promptly, 2 major causes should be considered. The first is antibiotic resistance, and this problem can be corrected on the basis of the sensitivity studies. The second is ureteral obstruction, secondary either to the effect of the gravid uterus or a urinary stone. If obstruction is suspected, renal ultrasonography should be performed. Depending upon the cause of the obstruction, a procedure such as a percutaneous nephrostomy or cystoscopic removal of the stone may be necessary.

Recurrence is possible. Following an initial episode of pyelonephritis, approximately 20% of patients will experience a recurrent lower or upper tract infection.¹ Because of this recurrence rate, I recommend that these patients receive suppressive doses of antibiotics for the remainder of pregnancy. An ideal agent for suppression is nitrofurantoin (100 mg at bedtime). An alternative agent is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) once daily. Amoxicillin and cephalexin are less desirable for prophylaxis because of their adverse effects on vaginal and bowel flora and their propensity for precipitating yeast infection and/or diarrhea.

CASE Resolved

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is acute cystitis. An in-out catheterization should be performed to obtain an uncontaminated urine specimen. A portion of the specimen should be forwarded to the laboratory for urine culture and sensitivity. Another portion should be used for assessment by dipstick. If the nitrite and leukocyte tests are positive, the diagnosis of acute cystitis is confirmed. Since this infection is the patient’s first episode, a reasonable antibiotic regimen would be oral nitrofurantoin (100 mg twice daily) for 3 days. The course should be extended to 7 days if symptoms persist at the end of 3 days. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with dysuria and suprapubic pain

A 25-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks of gestation requests evaluation because of the acute onset of frequent urination, dysuria, urination hesitancy, and suprapubic pain on the morning following intercourse. She has not experienced similar symptoms in the past. On physical examination, her temperature is 38 °C, pulse is 96 beats per minute, respirations are 18 per minute, and blood pressure is 100/76 mm Hg. She has no urethral discharge but is tender to palpation in the suprapubic area.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests would be of greatest value in confirming the diagnosis?
• What is the most appropriate treatment for this patient?

Meet our perpetrator

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections that occur during pregnancy. They may take one of 4 forms: acute urethritis, asymptomatic bacteriuria, acute cystitis, and acute pyelonephritis.¹ The first 3 conditions usually are straightforward to diagnose and treat, and they usually do not cause major problems for the mother or fetus. The latter, however, can cause serious complications that pose risk to the mother and fetus.

This article will review the microbiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of these 4 disorders in pregnancy. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures to avoid adverse effects on the mother and fetus from antimicrobial agents.

Acute urethritis

Acute urethritis can be caused by low concentrations of coliform organisms in the lower urinary tract, but it usually is secondary to infection by Neisseria gonorrhea or Chlamydia trachomatis. In most prenatal populations, the prevalence of one or the other of these 2 infections is approximately 5%.¹

The most common clinical manifestations of acute urethritis are a purulent urethral discharge, increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy. The diagnosis most easily is confirmed by obtaining a specimen of urethral discharge or urine and evaluating the sample by a nucleic acid amplification test for both gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Antibiotic therapy is preferred. The current recommended treatment for gonococcal urethritis is a single intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone 500 mg. If the patient prefers oral therapy, she can receive cefixime 800 mg in a single dose. For patients with an allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, the alternative regimen is gentamicin 240 mg in a single intramuscular injection, combined with oral azithromycin in a single 2,000-mg dose. For treatment of chlamydia in pregnancy, the recommended therapy is azithromycin 1,000 mg in a single oral dose.² A test of cure should be performed within 4 weeks of treatment.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is the most common UTI in women. Approximately 5% to 8% of all sexually active women have ASB. The condition is not unique to pregnancy; it is associated primarily with the assumption of coital activity. In point of fact, the ASB typically precedes pregnancy by several years.¹

The principal pathogens responsible for ASB are shown in the FIGURE. Over 80% of first-time infections are secondary to Escherichia coli. As more recurrent episodes occur, the other Gram-negative bacilli (ie, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus species) become more prevalent. The 3 major Gram-positive cocci that cause UTIs are enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococci.^1,3,4

In nonpregnant women, ASB usually remains completely asymptomatic, and ascending infections only rarely occur. In pregnancy, however, urinary stasis is present due to the effects of progesterone on ureteral peristalsis and because of pressure on the ureters (particularly the right) by the expanding gravid uterus. As a result, ascending infection may occur in approximately 20% of patients if the lower tract infection is not identified and treated adequately.¹

Clean-catch specimens and treatment

The standard criterion for the diagnosis of ASB is a urine culture that shows greater than 100,000 colonies/mL of a recognized uropathogen.¹ The urine usually is obtained as a midstream, clean-catch specimen, and the test should be performed at the time of the first prenatal appointment. Once identified, ASB should be treated promptly with one of the antibiotics listed in the TABLE. Nitrofurantoin monohydrate macrocrystals (nitrofurantoin) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be avoided in the first trimester unless no other drug is active against the identified microorganism.

Both have been linked to teratogenic fetal effects.^5-8 The defects associated with the former drug include eye abnormalities, heart defects, and facial clefts. The abnormalities associated with the latter include neural tube defects, heart defects, choanal atresia, and diaphragmatic hernia. In the first trimester, amoxicillin and cephalexin are reasonable choices for treatment. As a general rule, a 3-day course of antibiotics will be effective for eradicating the initial episode of ASB. For recurrent infections, a 7- to 10-day course is indicated.^1,3,4

Acute cystitis

The microbiology of acute cystitis essentially is identical to that of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The usual clinical manifestations include increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy in association with suprapubic discomfort and a lowgrade fever.

The diagnosis can be quickly confirmed by testing the urine pH and assessing for leukocyte esterase and nitrites. If both the leukocyte esterase and nitrite test are positive, the probability of a positive urine culture is high; however, the nitrite test can be falsely negative if the urine has been incubating in the bladder for only a short period of time or if a Gram-positive organism is responsible for the infection. The urine pH is particularly helpful if it is elevated in the range of 8. This finding strongly is associated with a Proteus infection.^1,9-11

Continue to: In-out catheterization is ideal...

 

 

In-out catheterization is ideal

I recommend that the urine sample be obtained by an in-out catheterization in symptomatic patients. This technique eliminates any concern about contamination of the specimen by vaginal organisms and provides a “pure” sample for culture. When urine is obtained by this method, the criterion for a positive culture result is greater than 100 colonies/mL.³ If the urine is obtained by the midstream clean-catch method, the cutoff for a positive culture remains greater than 100,000 colonies/mL.^1,3

Unless the clinician is working in a low resource environment, the culture should always be obtained even though the patient will be empirically treated prior to the culture result being available. The culture can be helpful in guiding changes in antibiotic therapy if the initial response to treatment is poor.

In the first trimester, empiric treatment should be with amoxicillin or cephalexin. Beyond the first trimester, nitrofurantoin should be the drug of choice. This antibiotic is inexpensive and well-tolerated. It has limited effect on the bowel or vaginal flora and is unlikely to cause a secondary yeast infection or diarrhea. If a Proteus infection is suspected, however, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/ 160 mg) should be used because this organism is not susceptible to nitrofurantoin. The duration of therapy should be a minimum of 3 days with the first infection and 7 to 10 days with recurrent infections.^1,3,4

Acute pyelonephritis

Pyelonephritis may develop de novo or may result from inadequate treatment of lower urinary tract infection. The right kidney is affected in approximately 75% of cases because the right ureter is more subject to compression by the gravid uterus. The principal pathogen is E coli, although Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species also are of importance. Other aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, such as Pseudomonas and Serratia species, are much less common unless the patient is immunosuppressed or has an indwelling catheter.¹

The characteristic clinical manifestations of acute pyelonephritis are high fever (>39 °C), shaking chills, nausea and vomiting, and flank pain and tenderness. Increased frequency of urination and dysuria also may be present. In addition, pyelonephritis may be accompanied by preterm labor, sepsis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The diagnosis is established by clinical findings, urinalysis, and urine culture. The urine specimen should be obtained by an in-out catheterization, analyzed initially by dipstick for nitrites and leukocyte esterase, and submitted for culture and sensitivity. Blood cultures should be obtained, and chest radiography should be performed if ARDS is suspected.

Empiric treatment should be started as soon as these initial diagnostic tests are completed. Many women in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy will not be seriously ill and may be treated as outpatients. I recommend an initial dose of intramuscular ceftriaxone 2 g followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (875 mg twice daily) for a total of 10 days. If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) twice daily would be an excellent alternative.^1,12

Treating seriously ill patients

Patients who are more seriously ill, particularly in the second half of pregnancy when preterm labor is more likely, should be hospitalized for supportive care (intravenous [IV] fluids, antipyretics, anti-emetics) and treatment with parenteral antibiotics.^1,12 At our medical center, IV ceftriaxone (2 g every 24 hours), is the agent of choice. It has a convenient dosing schedule and covers almost all of the potential uropathogens. If an unusually drug-resistant organism is suspected, gentamicin or aztreonam can be combined with ceftriaxone to ensure complete coverage (see dosage recommendations below).

If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, alternative IV agents include:

• trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (8–10 mg/kg/d in 2 divided doses)
• gentamicin (5 mg/kg of ideal body weight every 24 hours)
• aztreonam (2 g every 8 hours)

Parenteral antibiotics should be administered until the patient has been afebrile and asymptomatic for 24 hours. At this point, oral antibiotics, based on sensitivity testing, can be started, and the patient can be discharged to complete a 10-day course of therapy.

Continue to: Treatment failure...

Treatment failure

Obstetric patients with pyelonephritis usually respond promptly to antibiotics. More than 75% will be afebrile within 48 hours, and more than 90% will be afebrile within 72 hours. When patients fail to respond promptly, 2 major causes should be considered. The first is antibiotic resistance, and this problem can be corrected on the basis of the sensitivity studies. The second is ureteral obstruction, secondary either to the effect of the gravid uterus or a urinary stone. If obstruction is suspected, renal ultrasonography should be performed. Depending upon the cause of the obstruction, a procedure such as a percutaneous nephrostomy or cystoscopic removal of the stone may be necessary.

Recurrence is possible. Following an initial episode of pyelonephritis, approximately 20% of patients will experience a recurrent lower or upper tract infection.¹ Because of this recurrence rate, I recommend that these patients receive suppressive doses of antibiotics for the remainder of pregnancy. An ideal agent for suppression is nitrofurantoin (100 mg at bedtime). An alternative agent is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) once daily. Amoxicillin and cephalexin are less desirable for prophylaxis because of their adverse effects on vaginal and bowel flora and their propensity for precipitating yeast infection and/or diarrhea.

CASE Resolved

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is acute cystitis. An in-out catheterization should be performed to obtain an uncontaminated urine specimen. A portion of the specimen should be forwarded to the laboratory for urine culture and sensitivity. Another portion should be used for assessment by dipstick. If the nitrite and leukocyte tests are positive, the diagnosis of acute cystitis is confirmed. Since this infection is the patient’s first episode, a reasonable antibiotic regimen would be oral nitrofurantoin (100 mg twice daily) for 3 days. The course should be extended to 7 days if symptoms persist at the end of 3 days. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with dysuria and suprapubic pain

A 25-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks of gestation requests evaluation because of the acute onset of frequent urination, dysuria, urination hesitancy, and suprapubic pain on the morning following intercourse. She has not experienced similar symptoms in the past. On physical examination, her temperature is 38 °C, pulse is 96 beats per minute, respirations are 18 per minute, and blood pressure is 100/76 mm Hg. She has no urethral discharge but is tender to palpation in the suprapubic area.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests would be of greatest value in confirming the diagnosis?
• What is the most appropriate treatment for this patient?

Meet our perpetrator

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections that occur during pregnancy. They may take one of 4 forms: acute urethritis, asymptomatic bacteriuria, acute cystitis, and acute pyelonephritis.¹ The first 3 conditions usually are straightforward to diagnose and treat, and they usually do not cause major problems for the mother or fetus. The latter, however, can cause serious complications that pose risk to the mother and fetus.

This article will review the microbiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of these 4 disorders in pregnancy. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures to avoid adverse effects on the mother and fetus from antimicrobial agents.

Acute urethritis

Acute urethritis can be caused by low concentrations of coliform organisms in the lower urinary tract, but it usually is secondary to infection by Neisseria gonorrhea or Chlamydia trachomatis. In most prenatal populations, the prevalence of one or the other of these 2 infections is approximately 5%.¹

The most common clinical manifestations of acute urethritis are a purulent urethral discharge, increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy. The diagnosis most easily is confirmed by obtaining a specimen of urethral discharge or urine and evaluating the sample by a nucleic acid amplification test for both gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Antibiotic therapy is preferred. The current recommended treatment for gonococcal urethritis is a single intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone 500 mg. If the patient prefers oral therapy, she can receive cefixime 800 mg in a single dose. For patients with an allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, the alternative regimen is gentamicin 240 mg in a single intramuscular injection, combined with oral azithromycin in a single 2,000-mg dose. For treatment of chlamydia in pregnancy, the recommended therapy is azithromycin 1,000 mg in a single oral dose.² A test of cure should be performed within 4 weeks of treatment.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is the most common UTI in women. Approximately 5% to 8% of all sexually active women have ASB. The condition is not unique to pregnancy; it is associated primarily with the assumption of coital activity. In point of fact, the ASB typically precedes pregnancy by several years.¹

The principal pathogens responsible for ASB are shown in the FIGURE. Over 80% of first-time infections are secondary to Escherichia coli. As more recurrent episodes occur, the other Gram-negative bacilli (ie, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus species) become more prevalent. The 3 major Gram-positive cocci that cause UTIs are enterococci, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, and group B streptococci.^1,3,4

In nonpregnant women, ASB usually remains completely asymptomatic, and ascending infections only rarely occur. In pregnancy, however, urinary stasis is present due to the effects of progesterone on ureteral peristalsis and because of pressure on the ureters (particularly the right) by the expanding gravid uterus. As a result, ascending infection may occur in approximately 20% of patients if the lower tract infection is not identified and treated adequately.¹

Clean-catch specimens and treatment

The standard criterion for the diagnosis of ASB is a urine culture that shows greater than 100,000 colonies/mL of a recognized uropathogen.¹ The urine usually is obtained as a midstream, clean-catch specimen, and the test should be performed at the time of the first prenatal appointment. Once identified, ASB should be treated promptly with one of the antibiotics listed in the TABLE. Nitrofurantoin monohydrate macrocrystals (nitrofurantoin) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be avoided in the first trimester unless no other drug is active against the identified microorganism.

Both have been linked to teratogenic fetal effects.^5-8 The defects associated with the former drug include eye abnormalities, heart defects, and facial clefts. The abnormalities associated with the latter include neural tube defects, heart defects, choanal atresia, and diaphragmatic hernia. In the first trimester, amoxicillin and cephalexin are reasonable choices for treatment. As a general rule, a 3-day course of antibiotics will be effective for eradicating the initial episode of ASB. For recurrent infections, a 7- to 10-day course is indicated.^1,3,4

Acute cystitis

The microbiology of acute cystitis essentially is identical to that of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The usual clinical manifestations include increased frequency of urination, dysuria, and urination hesitancy in association with suprapubic discomfort and a lowgrade fever.

The diagnosis can be quickly confirmed by testing the urine pH and assessing for leukocyte esterase and nitrites. If both the leukocyte esterase and nitrite test are positive, the probability of a positive urine culture is high; however, the nitrite test can be falsely negative if the urine has been incubating in the bladder for only a short period of time or if a Gram-positive organism is responsible for the infection. The urine pH is particularly helpful if it is elevated in the range of 8. This finding strongly is associated with a Proteus infection.^1,9-11

Continue to: In-out catheterization is ideal...

 

 

In-out catheterization is ideal

I recommend that the urine sample be obtained by an in-out catheterization in symptomatic patients. This technique eliminates any concern about contamination of the specimen by vaginal organisms and provides a “pure” sample for culture. When urine is obtained by this method, the criterion for a positive culture result is greater than 100 colonies/mL.³ If the urine is obtained by the midstream clean-catch method, the cutoff for a positive culture remains greater than 100,000 colonies/mL.^1,3

Unless the clinician is working in a low resource environment, the culture should always be obtained even though the patient will be empirically treated prior to the culture result being available. The culture can be helpful in guiding changes in antibiotic therapy if the initial response to treatment is poor.

In the first trimester, empiric treatment should be with amoxicillin or cephalexin. Beyond the first trimester, nitrofurantoin should be the drug of choice. This antibiotic is inexpensive and well-tolerated. It has limited effect on the bowel or vaginal flora and is unlikely to cause a secondary yeast infection or diarrhea. If a Proteus infection is suspected, however, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/ 160 mg) should be used because this organism is not susceptible to nitrofurantoin. The duration of therapy should be a minimum of 3 days with the first infection and 7 to 10 days with recurrent infections.^1,3,4

Acute pyelonephritis

Pyelonephritis may develop de novo or may result from inadequate treatment of lower urinary tract infection. The right kidney is affected in approximately 75% of cases because the right ureter is more subject to compression by the gravid uterus. The principal pathogen is E coli, although Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus species also are of importance. Other aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, such as Pseudomonas and Serratia species, are much less common unless the patient is immunosuppressed or has an indwelling catheter.¹

The characteristic clinical manifestations of acute pyelonephritis are high fever (>39 °C), shaking chills, nausea and vomiting, and flank pain and tenderness. Increased frequency of urination and dysuria also may be present. In addition, pyelonephritis may be accompanied by preterm labor, sepsis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The diagnosis is established by clinical findings, urinalysis, and urine culture. The urine specimen should be obtained by an in-out catheterization, analyzed initially by dipstick for nitrites and leukocyte esterase, and submitted for culture and sensitivity. Blood cultures should be obtained, and chest radiography should be performed if ARDS is suspected.

Empiric treatment should be started as soon as these initial diagnostic tests are completed. Many women in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy will not be seriously ill and may be treated as outpatients. I recommend an initial dose of intramuscular ceftriaxone 2 g followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (875 mg twice daily) for a total of 10 days. If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) twice daily would be an excellent alternative.^1,12

Treating seriously ill patients

Patients who are more seriously ill, particularly in the second half of pregnancy when preterm labor is more likely, should be hospitalized for supportive care (intravenous [IV] fluids, antipyretics, anti-emetics) and treatment with parenteral antibiotics.^1,12 At our medical center, IV ceftriaxone (2 g every 24 hours), is the agent of choice. It has a convenient dosing schedule and covers almost all of the potential uropathogens. If an unusually drug-resistant organism is suspected, gentamicin or aztreonam can be combined with ceftriaxone to ensure complete coverage (see dosage recommendations below).

If the patient is allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics, alternative IV agents include:

• trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (8–10 mg/kg/d in 2 divided doses)
• gentamicin (5 mg/kg of ideal body weight every 24 hours)
• aztreonam (2 g every 8 hours)

Parenteral antibiotics should be administered until the patient has been afebrile and asymptomatic for 24 hours. At this point, oral antibiotics, based on sensitivity testing, can be started, and the patient can be discharged to complete a 10-day course of therapy.

Continue to: Treatment failure...

Treatment failure

Obstetric patients with pyelonephritis usually respond promptly to antibiotics. More than 75% will be afebrile within 48 hours, and more than 90% will be afebrile within 72 hours. When patients fail to respond promptly, 2 major causes should be considered. The first is antibiotic resistance, and this problem can be corrected on the basis of the sensitivity studies. The second is ureteral obstruction, secondary either to the effect of the gravid uterus or a urinary stone. If obstruction is suspected, renal ultrasonography should be performed. Depending upon the cause of the obstruction, a procedure such as a percutaneous nephrostomy or cystoscopic removal of the stone may be necessary.

Recurrence is possible. Following an initial episode of pyelonephritis, approximately 20% of patients will experience a recurrent lower or upper tract infection.¹ Because of this recurrence rate, I recommend that these patients receive suppressive doses of antibiotics for the remainder of pregnancy. An ideal agent for suppression is nitrofurantoin (100 mg at bedtime). An alternative agent is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength (800 mg/160 mg) once daily. Amoxicillin and cephalexin are less desirable for prophylaxis because of their adverse effects on vaginal and bowel flora and their propensity for precipitating yeast infection and/or diarrhea.

CASE Resolved

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is acute cystitis. An in-out catheterization should be performed to obtain an uncontaminated urine specimen. A portion of the specimen should be forwarded to the laboratory for urine culture and sensitivity. Another portion should be used for assessment by dipstick. If the nitrite and leukocyte tests are positive, the diagnosis of acute cystitis is confirmed. Since this infection is the patient’s first episode, a reasonable antibiotic regimen would be oral nitrofurantoin (100 mg twice daily) for 3 days. The course should be extended to 7 days if symptoms persist at the end of 3 days. ●

DIGITAL ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN J. DENAPOLI/DREW ANGERER/ALEX WONG/STONE RF / GETTY IMAGES

There is now great interest in the Supreme Court’s handling of cases that involve a woman’s ability to have an abortion. Recent decisions, and those planned in the next few months will be the source of intense scrutiny. But the Court’s involvement in reproductive rights did not begin with abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court has a long history of controversial decisions dealing with reproductive rights.

Involuntary sterilization

A notable, even infamous, case was Buck v Bell (1927)—later discredited—in which the Court reviewed a state law that provided for the involuntary sterilization of the “feeble minded.”¹ The 8-1 decision was that the state could choose to have such a law to protect the so-called genetic health of the state. The law was based on a theory of eugenics. The opinion by the highly respected Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes included the unfortunate conclusion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”² As mentioned, the law has since been thoroughly discredited. In 1942, the Court did come to a different result, holding in Skinner v Oklahoma that it was unconstitutional for a state to involuntarily sterilize “habitual criminals.”³

Contraception

Forty years after Buck, in Griswold v Connecticut, the Court reviewed a state law that prohibited the distribution of any drug or device used for contraception (even for married couples).⁴ In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the state law as violating a marital right of privacy. Beyond its specific holding, Griswold was important in several ways. First, a physician was raising the rights of patients (not specifically his own rights). This is notable because, ordinarily in court, litigants may argue their own rights, not the rights of others. This has been important in later reproductive rights cases because often it has been physicians raising and arguing the rights of patients.

A second interesting part of Griswold was the source of this constitutional right of privacy. The Constitution contains no express privacy provision. In Griswold, the Court found that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas found that “emanations” from these amendments have “penumbras” that create a right of marital privacy.

Although Griswold was based on marital privacy, a few years later, in 1972, the Court essentially converted that right to one of reproductive privacy (“the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”) In Eisenstadt v Baird, the Court held that it was a violation of equal protection (the 14th Amendment) for a state to allow contraception to the married but deny it to an unmarried person.⁵

Continue to: Abortion...

Abortion

In 1971, the Court had heard arguments in 2 cases that raised issues regarding whether state laws prohibiting abortion were constitutional. The first oral argument in Roe v Wade is widely considered one of the worst oral arguments in modern history, and for several reasons the Court set the case for rehearing the following Term (October 1972). In January 1973, the Court decided Roe v Wade.⁶ The 7-2 decision was written by Justice Blackmun, who had at one point been the attorney for the Mayo Clinic and might be considered one of the first “health lawyers.” The Court held that the Constitution (perhaps in the 14th or 9th Amendment) includes a right of privacy that includes the right of a woman to choose to have, or not to have, an abortion. In implementing the right, the Court held that a state may impose only modest medical safeguards for the mother (eg, requiring that abortions be performed by a licensed physician). In the second trimester, to the point of viability, a state could impose only limitations on abortion that were reasonably directed to ensure the health of the mother. After a fetus was viable (could live outside the mother’s body), the state was free to regulate or prohibit abortions and protect the fetus. At the time, viability was approximately the beginning of the third trimester.⁶

The clear majority of the Court in Roe (7-2) may have suggested that there was not strong opposition to the decision. That, of course, was not the case. Legal and political conflict surrounding the case has been, and remains, intense. Since 1973, the Court has been called upon to decide many abortion cases, and each case seems to beget more controversy and still more cases.

Some of the legal objections to Roe and other abortion decisions are that the constitutional basis for the decision remains unclear—a specific right of privacy is not contained in the text of the Constitution. Several locations of a possible right of privacy have been mentioned by various justices, but “substantive due process” became the common constitutional basis for the right. Critics note that “substantive” due process (as opposed to procedural due process) is not mentioned in the Constitution, and it is short on clear guiding principles. Beyond those jurisprudential issues, of course, there were strong religious and philosophical objections to abortion. What followed Roe has been a long series of efforts to limit or discourage access to abortion, and the Supreme Court has had to decide a great many abortion cases (and a few contraception cases) over the last 50 years. Most years (except from 2008‒2013) the Court has heard, on average, at least one abortion case.

By way of examples, here are some of the issues related to abortion that the Court has decided:

• Payment and facilities. States and the federal government are not required to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford them or to provide facilities for abortion.^7-10
• Informed consent. Some states’ special informed consent requirements for abortion were upheld, but complex consents that required the father’s participation were not.
• Ability to advertise. Prohibitions on advertisement of abortion services were struck down.
• Location. Requirements for hospital-only abortions (or similar regulations) were struck down.
• Anti-abortion protests. Several cases addressed guidelines involving demonstrations near abortion clinics.

Of particular importance was the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey—“Casey.”¹¹ In 1992 that case reaffirmed the “essential” holding of Roe v Wade. A plurality in that case de-emphasized the trimester framework and applied an “undue burden” test on limitations on abortion. In the more recent cases argued before the Court, Casey is frequently referred to as specifically reaffirming, and therefore solidifying, Roe.

Consent for minors

There have been several cases since 1973 that involved contraceptives or abortions and “minors” (generally, adolescents aged <18 years, although there are some state-defined exceptions). These cases typically involve 2 issues: the right of minors to consent to treatment and the obligation of the physician to provide information to parents about treatment to their minor daughter. In 1977 the Court struck down a New York law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to minors.¹² However, abortion issues involving minors have been more complicated. While the Court has struck down “2-parent” consent statutes,¹³ it has generally upheld 1-parent consent statutes, but only if those statutes contain a “judicial bypass” provision and an emergency medical provision.^11,14,15 (This bypass allows a minor to “bypass” parental consent to abortion in some circumstances, and instead seek judicial authorization for an abortion.) Generally, the Court has upheld parental notification for abortions, with exceptions where it would be harmful to the minor who is seeking the abortion.^16-19

Continue to: Who can perform an abortion...

Who can perform an abortion

Over the years there have also been several cases raising questions about the professionals who can perform abortions, their hospital privileges, and what facilities can perform abortions. Two of those cases in recent years have, for example, seen the Court strike down state statutes that required the physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at least in 1 nearby hospital.^20,21 The basis for these decisions is that the admitting qualification is an “undue burden” because it serves almost no health purpose, while significantly limiting the number of professionals who can perform abortions.

Cases this Term

The current Term of the Court (officially the “October 2021 Term”) may be one of the most significant for reproductive rights in recent history. The Court accepted 6 abortion-related cases to hear. It dismissed 3 of those cases, which had become “moot” because the Biden administration changed the rules that had been legally challenged.^22-24 It has heard arguments in the 3 (technically 4) remaining cases, in which decisions will be announced over the next several months.

The first of these cases (involving the Texas Heartbeat Act) raises very important, but vexing, procedural issues about a Texas abortion law. The second (Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson) is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. The third case (Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center) involves the narrow question of whether a state attorney general can intervene in a case to uphold a state abortion law when another state official refuses to defend the law.²⁵ It is worthwhile taking a look at the first 2 of these cases.

Texas Heartbeat Act

In the first case (technically, it is 2 cases, as we will see), the Texas legislature adopted a law that prohibits abortions after there is a discernable heartbeat (around 6 weeks of pregnancy). The law precludes state officials from enforcing the law. Instead, it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages ($10,000 plus fees) from anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” an abortion. (This is in some ways similar to “private attorney general” actions found in the False Claims Act, and in some civil rights and labor laws.) This statute is clearly inconsistent with Roe in that it prohibits abortions before the end of the second trimester. If it were a usual law—a Texas law being enforced by state officials—federal courts would issue injunctions to state officials against enforcing the law. The difficulty with the Texas law (and its very purpose) is that there are procedural limitations in federal law that make it very difficult to find a path for federal courts to review the Texas statute quickly. For example, would federal courts enjoin every private citizen of the state? There is a longstanding Constitutional doctrine that precludes federal courts from enjoining state courts.²⁶ Therefore, it is difficult to challenge the law before someone performing or aiding an abortion has been ordered to pay the private citizen who is enforcing it. In the interim, which could be months or even years, health care providers face uncertainty about continuing to provide abortion services. Some providers would stop providing abortion services, reducing the availability of those services.

Two cases challenge this Texas procedure. In the first, Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson, 27 abortion providers seek to find some way through the procedural thicket to allow an immediate challenge to the statute. It is important because this technique of exclusive private enforcement could be used in any number of ways by the state to chill important constitutional rights (beyond abortion—to speech, to bear arms). In the second case involving the Texas law, U.S. v Texas, the federal government seeks to intervene in the case, which is another unusual procedure.²⁸ The Court found these questions so important and difficult that it allowed 3 hours of argument (and 4 sets of lawyers). It seems likely that the Court will find a mechanism for allowing some early federal court review of individual enforcement of state laws, while minimizing harm to the state-national federalism that is at the heart of the Constitution.

For the recent procedural decisions in the Texas cases, see the “Current Court Decisions” box below.

Continue to: Re-evaluating the viability standard...

 

 

Re-evaluating the viability standard

The substantive abortion issue in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the constitutionality of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which allows abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.²⁹ This case is likely the most watched and controversial case of the Term. Many medical organizations have filed amicus curiae briefs, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists joined by the American Medical Association,³⁰ the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics,³¹ and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.³² The reason for all this attention is that the Court has accepted to resolve “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Thus, it represents a direct challenge to the trimester/viability structure of Roe.

It appears that there are 3 justices ready to outright overrule Roe, 3 that would uphold it as is, and 3 who are not in favor of Roe, but feel bound by precedent or are not in favor of a traumatic move. For that reason, there may be a narrow decision in this case. For example, the Court might find a procedural way to avoid directly deciding the abortion issue in this case, or it might uphold the right to abortion but change the viability standard. It is also true that predicting what the Court will do in controversial cases is a fool’s errand.

The complexity of reproductive rights and the ObGyn practice

These cases and policies affect the day-to-day practice of obstetrics. It is the most legally complex area of medical practice for several reasons. The law varies considerably from state to state. The clinician who practices both in California and across the border in Arizona will face substantially different laws, especially regarding the treatment of adolescents. And the reproductive rights laws in many states are a complicated mix of state statutes and state court decisions, with an overlay of federal statutes and court decisions, and a series of both state and federal regulations. This article demonstrates an additional complexity for practitioners—the continuous change in the law surrounding reproductive rights—and practice involving adolescent patients is especially difficult.

There are some good state-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception. We find the Guttmacher Institute particularly helpful. (See “State-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception”.) Although these are good resources, they are not the basis for legal practice with the current law in a state. The complexity and ever-changing nature of reproductive rights is one of the reasons we believe that it is important that anyone in active ObGyn practice maintain an ongoing professional relationship with a lawyer with expertise in this area of practice. This relationship should establish and update policies and procedures consistent with local law, consent and other forms, reporting of possible child abuse, and the like. An annual legal checkup may be as important for physicians as a physical checkup is for their patients.

Future outcomes

At the end of the Term, we will review the outcome of the cases noted above—and the possibility of follow-on cases. Whatever the Court does this Term, it will not be the end of the legal and political struggles over abortion and other reproductive issues. These questions deeply divide our society, and the cases and controversies reflect that continuing division. ●

DIGITAL ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN J. DENAPOLI/DREW ANGERER/ALEX WONG/STONE RF / GETTY IMAGES

There is now great interest in the Supreme Court’s handling of cases that involve a woman’s ability to have an abortion. Recent decisions, and those planned in the next few months will be the source of intense scrutiny. But the Court’s involvement in reproductive rights did not begin with abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court has a long history of controversial decisions dealing with reproductive rights.

Involuntary sterilization

A notable, even infamous, case was Buck v Bell (1927)—later discredited—in which the Court reviewed a state law that provided for the involuntary sterilization of the “feeble minded.”¹ The 8-1 decision was that the state could choose to have such a law to protect the so-called genetic health of the state. The law was based on a theory of eugenics. The opinion by the highly respected Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes included the unfortunate conclusion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”² As mentioned, the law has since been thoroughly discredited. In 1942, the Court did come to a different result, holding in Skinner v Oklahoma that it was unconstitutional for a state to involuntarily sterilize “habitual criminals.”³

Contraception

Forty years after Buck, in Griswold v Connecticut, the Court reviewed a state law that prohibited the distribution of any drug or device used for contraception (even for married couples).⁴ In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the state law as violating a marital right of privacy. Beyond its specific holding, Griswold was important in several ways. First, a physician was raising the rights of patients (not specifically his own rights). This is notable because, ordinarily in court, litigants may argue their own rights, not the rights of others. This has been important in later reproductive rights cases because often it has been physicians raising and arguing the rights of patients.

A second interesting part of Griswold was the source of this constitutional right of privacy. The Constitution contains no express privacy provision. In Griswold, the Court found that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas found that “emanations” from these amendments have “penumbras” that create a right of marital privacy.

Although Griswold was based on marital privacy, a few years later, in 1972, the Court essentially converted that right to one of reproductive privacy (“the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”) In Eisenstadt v Baird, the Court held that it was a violation of equal protection (the 14th Amendment) for a state to allow contraception to the married but deny it to an unmarried person.⁵

Continue to: Abortion...

Abortion

In 1971, the Court had heard arguments in 2 cases that raised issues regarding whether state laws prohibiting abortion were constitutional. The first oral argument in Roe v Wade is widely considered one of the worst oral arguments in modern history, and for several reasons the Court set the case for rehearing the following Term (October 1972). In January 1973, the Court decided Roe v Wade.⁶ The 7-2 decision was written by Justice Blackmun, who had at one point been the attorney for the Mayo Clinic and might be considered one of the first “health lawyers.” The Court held that the Constitution (perhaps in the 14th or 9th Amendment) includes a right of privacy that includes the right of a woman to choose to have, or not to have, an abortion. In implementing the right, the Court held that a state may impose only modest medical safeguards for the mother (eg, requiring that abortions be performed by a licensed physician). In the second trimester, to the point of viability, a state could impose only limitations on abortion that were reasonably directed to ensure the health of the mother. After a fetus was viable (could live outside the mother’s body), the state was free to regulate or prohibit abortions and protect the fetus. At the time, viability was approximately the beginning of the third trimester.⁶

The clear majority of the Court in Roe (7-2) may have suggested that there was not strong opposition to the decision. That, of course, was not the case. Legal and political conflict surrounding the case has been, and remains, intense. Since 1973, the Court has been called upon to decide many abortion cases, and each case seems to beget more controversy and still more cases.

Some of the legal objections to Roe and other abortion decisions are that the constitutional basis for the decision remains unclear—a specific right of privacy is not contained in the text of the Constitution. Several locations of a possible right of privacy have been mentioned by various justices, but “substantive due process” became the common constitutional basis for the right. Critics note that “substantive” due process (as opposed to procedural due process) is not mentioned in the Constitution, and it is short on clear guiding principles. Beyond those jurisprudential issues, of course, there were strong religious and philosophical objections to abortion. What followed Roe has been a long series of efforts to limit or discourage access to abortion, and the Supreme Court has had to decide a great many abortion cases (and a few contraception cases) over the last 50 years. Most years (except from 2008‒2013) the Court has heard, on average, at least one abortion case.

By way of examples, here are some of the issues related to abortion that the Court has decided:

• Payment and facilities. States and the federal government are not required to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford them or to provide facilities for abortion.^7-10
• Informed consent. Some states’ special informed consent requirements for abortion were upheld, but complex consents that required the father’s participation were not.
• Ability to advertise. Prohibitions on advertisement of abortion services were struck down.
• Location. Requirements for hospital-only abortions (or similar regulations) were struck down.
• Anti-abortion protests. Several cases addressed guidelines involving demonstrations near abortion clinics.

Of particular importance was the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey—“Casey.”¹¹ In 1992 that case reaffirmed the “essential” holding of Roe v Wade. A plurality in that case de-emphasized the trimester framework and applied an “undue burden” test on limitations on abortion. In the more recent cases argued before the Court, Casey is frequently referred to as specifically reaffirming, and therefore solidifying, Roe.

Consent for minors

There have been several cases since 1973 that involved contraceptives or abortions and “minors” (generally, adolescents aged <18 years, although there are some state-defined exceptions). These cases typically involve 2 issues: the right of minors to consent to treatment and the obligation of the physician to provide information to parents about treatment to their minor daughter. In 1977 the Court struck down a New York law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to minors.¹² However, abortion issues involving minors have been more complicated. While the Court has struck down “2-parent” consent statutes,¹³ it has generally upheld 1-parent consent statutes, but only if those statutes contain a “judicial bypass” provision and an emergency medical provision.^11,14,15 (This bypass allows a minor to “bypass” parental consent to abortion in some circumstances, and instead seek judicial authorization for an abortion.) Generally, the Court has upheld parental notification for abortions, with exceptions where it would be harmful to the minor who is seeking the abortion.^16-19

Continue to: Who can perform an abortion...

Who can perform an abortion

Over the years there have also been several cases raising questions about the professionals who can perform abortions, their hospital privileges, and what facilities can perform abortions. Two of those cases in recent years have, for example, seen the Court strike down state statutes that required the physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at least in 1 nearby hospital.^20,21 The basis for these decisions is that the admitting qualification is an “undue burden” because it serves almost no health purpose, while significantly limiting the number of professionals who can perform abortions.

Cases this Term

The current Term of the Court (officially the “October 2021 Term”) may be one of the most significant for reproductive rights in recent history. The Court accepted 6 abortion-related cases to hear. It dismissed 3 of those cases, which had become “moot” because the Biden administration changed the rules that had been legally challenged.^22-24 It has heard arguments in the 3 (technically 4) remaining cases, in which decisions will be announced over the next several months.

The first of these cases (involving the Texas Heartbeat Act) raises very important, but vexing, procedural issues about a Texas abortion law. The second (Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson) is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. The third case (Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center) involves the narrow question of whether a state attorney general can intervene in a case to uphold a state abortion law when another state official refuses to defend the law.²⁵ It is worthwhile taking a look at the first 2 of these cases.

Texas Heartbeat Act

In the first case (technically, it is 2 cases, as we will see), the Texas legislature adopted a law that prohibits abortions after there is a discernable heartbeat (around 6 weeks of pregnancy). The law precludes state officials from enforcing the law. Instead, it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages ($10,000 plus fees) from anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” an abortion. (This is in some ways similar to “private attorney general” actions found in the False Claims Act, and in some civil rights and labor laws.) This statute is clearly inconsistent with Roe in that it prohibits abortions before the end of the second trimester. If it were a usual law—a Texas law being enforced by state officials—federal courts would issue injunctions to state officials against enforcing the law. The difficulty with the Texas law (and its very purpose) is that there are procedural limitations in federal law that make it very difficult to find a path for federal courts to review the Texas statute quickly. For example, would federal courts enjoin every private citizen of the state? There is a longstanding Constitutional doctrine that precludes federal courts from enjoining state courts.²⁶ Therefore, it is difficult to challenge the law before someone performing or aiding an abortion has been ordered to pay the private citizen who is enforcing it. In the interim, which could be months or even years, health care providers face uncertainty about continuing to provide abortion services. Some providers would stop providing abortion services, reducing the availability of those services.

Two cases challenge this Texas procedure. In the first, Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson, 27 abortion providers seek to find some way through the procedural thicket to allow an immediate challenge to the statute. It is important because this technique of exclusive private enforcement could be used in any number of ways by the state to chill important constitutional rights (beyond abortion—to speech, to bear arms). In the second case involving the Texas law, U.S. v Texas, the federal government seeks to intervene in the case, which is another unusual procedure.²⁸ The Court found these questions so important and difficult that it allowed 3 hours of argument (and 4 sets of lawyers). It seems likely that the Court will find a mechanism for allowing some early federal court review of individual enforcement of state laws, while minimizing harm to the state-national federalism that is at the heart of the Constitution.

For the recent procedural decisions in the Texas cases, see the “Current Court Decisions” box below.

Continue to: Re-evaluating the viability standard...

 

 

Re-evaluating the viability standard

The substantive abortion issue in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the constitutionality of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which allows abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.²⁹ This case is likely the most watched and controversial case of the Term. Many medical organizations have filed amicus curiae briefs, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists joined by the American Medical Association,³⁰ the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics,³¹ and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.³² The reason for all this attention is that the Court has accepted to resolve “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Thus, it represents a direct challenge to the trimester/viability structure of Roe.

It appears that there are 3 justices ready to outright overrule Roe, 3 that would uphold it as is, and 3 who are not in favor of Roe, but feel bound by precedent or are not in favor of a traumatic move. For that reason, there may be a narrow decision in this case. For example, the Court might find a procedural way to avoid directly deciding the abortion issue in this case, or it might uphold the right to abortion but change the viability standard. It is also true that predicting what the Court will do in controversial cases is a fool’s errand.

The complexity of reproductive rights and the ObGyn practice

These cases and policies affect the day-to-day practice of obstetrics. It is the most legally complex area of medical practice for several reasons. The law varies considerably from state to state. The clinician who practices both in California and across the border in Arizona will face substantially different laws, especially regarding the treatment of adolescents. And the reproductive rights laws in many states are a complicated mix of state statutes and state court decisions, with an overlay of federal statutes and court decisions, and a series of both state and federal regulations. This article demonstrates an additional complexity for practitioners—the continuous change in the law surrounding reproductive rights—and practice involving adolescent patients is especially difficult.

There are some good state-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception. We find the Guttmacher Institute particularly helpful. (See “State-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception”.) Although these are good resources, they are not the basis for legal practice with the current law in a state. The complexity and ever-changing nature of reproductive rights is one of the reasons we believe that it is important that anyone in active ObGyn practice maintain an ongoing professional relationship with a lawyer with expertise in this area of practice. This relationship should establish and update policies and procedures consistent with local law, consent and other forms, reporting of possible child abuse, and the like. An annual legal checkup may be as important for physicians as a physical checkup is for their patients.

Future outcomes

At the end of the Term, we will review the outcome of the cases noted above—and the possibility of follow-on cases. Whatever the Court does this Term, it will not be the end of the legal and political struggles over abortion and other reproductive issues. These questions deeply divide our society, and the cases and controversies reflect that continuing division. ●

DIGITAL ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN J. DENAPOLI/DREW ANGERER/ALEX WONG/STONE RF / GETTY IMAGES

There is now great interest in the Supreme Court’s handling of cases that involve a woman’s ability to have an abortion. Recent decisions, and those planned in the next few months will be the source of intense scrutiny. But the Court’s involvement in reproductive rights did not begin with abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court has a long history of controversial decisions dealing with reproductive rights.

Involuntary sterilization

A notable, even infamous, case was Buck v Bell (1927)—later discredited—in which the Court reviewed a state law that provided for the involuntary sterilization of the “feeble minded.”¹ The 8-1 decision was that the state could choose to have such a law to protect the so-called genetic health of the state. The law was based on a theory of eugenics. The opinion by the highly respected Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes included the unfortunate conclusion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”² As mentioned, the law has since been thoroughly discredited. In 1942, the Court did come to a different result, holding in Skinner v Oklahoma that it was unconstitutional for a state to involuntarily sterilize “habitual criminals.”³

Contraception

Forty years after Buck, in Griswold v Connecticut, the Court reviewed a state law that prohibited the distribution of any drug or device used for contraception (even for married couples).⁴ In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the state law as violating a marital right of privacy. Beyond its specific holding, Griswold was important in several ways. First, a physician was raising the rights of patients (not specifically his own rights). This is notable because, ordinarily in court, litigants may argue their own rights, not the rights of others. This has been important in later reproductive rights cases because often it has been physicians raising and arguing the rights of patients.

A second interesting part of Griswold was the source of this constitutional right of privacy. The Constitution contains no express privacy provision. In Griswold, the Court found that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas found that “emanations” from these amendments have “penumbras” that create a right of marital privacy.

Although Griswold was based on marital privacy, a few years later, in 1972, the Court essentially converted that right to one of reproductive privacy (“the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”) In Eisenstadt v Baird, the Court held that it was a violation of equal protection (the 14th Amendment) for a state to allow contraception to the married but deny it to an unmarried person.⁵

Continue to: Abortion...

Abortion

In 1971, the Court had heard arguments in 2 cases that raised issues regarding whether state laws prohibiting abortion were constitutional. The first oral argument in Roe v Wade is widely considered one of the worst oral arguments in modern history, and for several reasons the Court set the case for rehearing the following Term (October 1972). In January 1973, the Court decided Roe v Wade.⁶ The 7-2 decision was written by Justice Blackmun, who had at one point been the attorney for the Mayo Clinic and might be considered one of the first “health lawyers.” The Court held that the Constitution (perhaps in the 14th or 9th Amendment) includes a right of privacy that includes the right of a woman to choose to have, or not to have, an abortion. In implementing the right, the Court held that a state may impose only modest medical safeguards for the mother (eg, requiring that abortions be performed by a licensed physician). In the second trimester, to the point of viability, a state could impose only limitations on abortion that were reasonably directed to ensure the health of the mother. After a fetus was viable (could live outside the mother’s body), the state was free to regulate or prohibit abortions and protect the fetus. At the time, viability was approximately the beginning of the third trimester.⁶

The clear majority of the Court in Roe (7-2) may have suggested that there was not strong opposition to the decision. That, of course, was not the case. Legal and political conflict surrounding the case has been, and remains, intense. Since 1973, the Court has been called upon to decide many abortion cases, and each case seems to beget more controversy and still more cases.

Some of the legal objections to Roe and other abortion decisions are that the constitutional basis for the decision remains unclear—a specific right of privacy is not contained in the text of the Constitution. Several locations of a possible right of privacy have been mentioned by various justices, but “substantive due process” became the common constitutional basis for the right. Critics note that “substantive” due process (as opposed to procedural due process) is not mentioned in the Constitution, and it is short on clear guiding principles. Beyond those jurisprudential issues, of course, there were strong religious and philosophical objections to abortion. What followed Roe has been a long series of efforts to limit or discourage access to abortion, and the Supreme Court has had to decide a great many abortion cases (and a few contraception cases) over the last 50 years. Most years (except from 2008‒2013) the Court has heard, on average, at least one abortion case.

By way of examples, here are some of the issues related to abortion that the Court has decided:

• Payment and facilities. States and the federal government are not required to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford them or to provide facilities for abortion.^7-10
• Informed consent. Some states’ special informed consent requirements for abortion were upheld, but complex consents that required the father’s participation were not.
• Ability to advertise. Prohibitions on advertisement of abortion services were struck down.
• Location. Requirements for hospital-only abortions (or similar regulations) were struck down.
• Anti-abortion protests. Several cases addressed guidelines involving demonstrations near abortion clinics.

Of particular importance was the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey—“Casey.”¹¹ In 1992 that case reaffirmed the “essential” holding of Roe v Wade. A plurality in that case de-emphasized the trimester framework and applied an “undue burden” test on limitations on abortion. In the more recent cases argued before the Court, Casey is frequently referred to as specifically reaffirming, and therefore solidifying, Roe.

Consent for minors

There have been several cases since 1973 that involved contraceptives or abortions and “minors” (generally, adolescents aged <18 years, although there are some state-defined exceptions). These cases typically involve 2 issues: the right of minors to consent to treatment and the obligation of the physician to provide information to parents about treatment to their minor daughter. In 1977 the Court struck down a New York law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to minors.¹² However, abortion issues involving minors have been more complicated. While the Court has struck down “2-parent” consent statutes,¹³ it has generally upheld 1-parent consent statutes, but only if those statutes contain a “judicial bypass” provision and an emergency medical provision.^11,14,15 (This bypass allows a minor to “bypass” parental consent to abortion in some circumstances, and instead seek judicial authorization for an abortion.) Generally, the Court has upheld parental notification for abortions, with exceptions where it would be harmful to the minor who is seeking the abortion.^16-19

Continue to: Who can perform an abortion...

Who can perform an abortion

Over the years there have also been several cases raising questions about the professionals who can perform abortions, their hospital privileges, and what facilities can perform abortions. Two of those cases in recent years have, for example, seen the Court strike down state statutes that required the physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at least in 1 nearby hospital.^20,21 The basis for these decisions is that the admitting qualification is an “undue burden” because it serves almost no health purpose, while significantly limiting the number of professionals who can perform abortions.

Cases this Term

The current Term of the Court (officially the “October 2021 Term”) may be one of the most significant for reproductive rights in recent history. The Court accepted 6 abortion-related cases to hear. It dismissed 3 of those cases, which had become “moot” because the Biden administration changed the rules that had been legally challenged.^22-24 It has heard arguments in the 3 (technically 4) remaining cases, in which decisions will be announced over the next several months.

The first of these cases (involving the Texas Heartbeat Act) raises very important, but vexing, procedural issues about a Texas abortion law. The second (Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson) is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. The third case (Cameron v EMW Women’s Surgical Center) involves the narrow question of whether a state attorney general can intervene in a case to uphold a state abortion law when another state official refuses to defend the law.²⁵ It is worthwhile taking a look at the first 2 of these cases.

Texas Heartbeat Act

In the first case (technically, it is 2 cases, as we will see), the Texas legislature adopted a law that prohibits abortions after there is a discernable heartbeat (around 6 weeks of pregnancy). The law precludes state officials from enforcing the law. Instead, it allows almost any private citizen to seek monetary damages ($10,000 plus fees) from anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” an abortion. (This is in some ways similar to “private attorney general” actions found in the False Claims Act, and in some civil rights and labor laws.) This statute is clearly inconsistent with Roe in that it prohibits abortions before the end of the second trimester. If it were a usual law—a Texas law being enforced by state officials—federal courts would issue injunctions to state officials against enforcing the law. The difficulty with the Texas law (and its very purpose) is that there are procedural limitations in federal law that make it very difficult to find a path for federal courts to review the Texas statute quickly. For example, would federal courts enjoin every private citizen of the state? There is a longstanding Constitutional doctrine that precludes federal courts from enjoining state courts.²⁶ Therefore, it is difficult to challenge the law before someone performing or aiding an abortion has been ordered to pay the private citizen who is enforcing it. In the interim, which could be months or even years, health care providers face uncertainty about continuing to provide abortion services. Some providers would stop providing abortion services, reducing the availability of those services.

Two cases challenge this Texas procedure. In the first, Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson, 27 abortion providers seek to find some way through the procedural thicket to allow an immediate challenge to the statute. It is important because this technique of exclusive private enforcement could be used in any number of ways by the state to chill important constitutional rights (beyond abortion—to speech, to bear arms). In the second case involving the Texas law, U.S. v Texas, the federal government seeks to intervene in the case, which is another unusual procedure.²⁸ The Court found these questions so important and difficult that it allowed 3 hours of argument (and 4 sets of lawyers). It seems likely that the Court will find a mechanism for allowing some early federal court review of individual enforcement of state laws, while minimizing harm to the state-national federalism that is at the heart of the Constitution.

For the recent procedural decisions in the Texas cases, see the “Current Court Decisions” box below.

Continue to: Re-evaluating the viability standard...

 

 

Re-evaluating the viability standard

The substantive abortion issue in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the constitutionality of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which allows abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.²⁹ This case is likely the most watched and controversial case of the Term. Many medical organizations have filed amicus curiae briefs, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists joined by the American Medical Association,³⁰ the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics,³¹ and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.³² The reason for all this attention is that the Court has accepted to resolve “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Thus, it represents a direct challenge to the trimester/viability structure of Roe.

It appears that there are 3 justices ready to outright overrule Roe, 3 that would uphold it as is, and 3 who are not in favor of Roe, but feel bound by precedent or are not in favor of a traumatic move. For that reason, there may be a narrow decision in this case. For example, the Court might find a procedural way to avoid directly deciding the abortion issue in this case, or it might uphold the right to abortion but change the viability standard. It is also true that predicting what the Court will do in controversial cases is a fool’s errand.

The complexity of reproductive rights and the ObGyn practice

These cases and policies affect the day-to-day practice of obstetrics. It is the most legally complex area of medical practice for several reasons. The law varies considerably from state to state. The clinician who practices both in California and across the border in Arizona will face substantially different laws, especially regarding the treatment of adolescents. And the reproductive rights laws in many states are a complicated mix of state statutes and state court decisions, with an overlay of federal statutes and court decisions, and a series of both state and federal regulations. This article demonstrates an additional complexity for practitioners—the continuous change in the law surrounding reproductive rights—and practice involving adolescent patients is especially difficult.

There are some good state-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception. We find the Guttmacher Institute particularly helpful. (See “State-by-state reviews of laws related to abortion and contraception”.) Although these are good resources, they are not the basis for legal practice with the current law in a state. The complexity and ever-changing nature of reproductive rights is one of the reasons we believe that it is important that anyone in active ObGyn practice maintain an ongoing professional relationship with a lawyer with expertise in this area of practice. This relationship should establish and update policies and procedures consistent with local law, consent and other forms, reporting of possible child abuse, and the like. An annual legal checkup may be as important for physicians as a physical checkup is for their patients.

Future outcomes

At the end of the Term, we will review the outcome of the cases noted above—and the possibility of follow-on cases. Whatever the Court does this Term, it will not be the end of the legal and political struggles over abortion and other reproductive issues. These questions deeply divide our society, and the cases and controversies reflect that continuing division. ●

On the basis of the patient's personal and family history together with his presentation, the likely diagnosis is latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). LADA is characterized by beta-cell loss and insulin resistance. This slowly evolving form of autoimmune diabetes comprises 2%-12% of all patients with adult-onset diabetes. Patients with LADA present with evidence of autoimmunity and varying C-peptide levels, which decrease more slowly in this subgroup than in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). They also have immunogenic markers associated with T1D, primarily anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibodies. 

Patients with LADA are often misdiagnosed as having T2D. The clinical picture of LADA overlaps with that of T2D, with patients being insulin resistant and often overweight. In addition, presenting symptoms of LADA — excessive thirst, blurred vision, and high blood glucose — are also seen in T2D. Although LADA is technically classified as T1D, some groups posit that the condition exists on a spectrum between T1D and T2D. Compared with patients with T2D, those with LADA are generally younger at diagnosis (often in their 30s), have lower BMI, and report a personal or family history of autoimmune diseases, such as the patient in this quiz. Throughout the disease course, individuals with LADA show a reduced frequency of metabolic syndrome compared with those with T2D.

Key to diagnosis is the absence of insulin requirement for at least 6 months. Anti-GAD antibodies are the most sensitive marker for LADA; other autoantibodies that occur less frequently include ICA, IA-2A, ZnT8A, and tetraspanin 7 autoantibodies. With a paucity of large-scale clinical trials in LADA, current treatment strategies are not based on consensus guidelines, though an expert panel has published management recommendations. Category 1 patients (defined as a C-peptide level < 0.3 nmol/L) are treated with intensive insulin therapy. The recommendation for category 2 patients (defined as C-peptide values ≥ 0.3 and ≤ 0.7 nmol/L) is a modified American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes algorithm for T2D. However, patients with category 2 LADA may need to initiate insulin therapy earlier to combat beta-cell failure (ostensibly because LADA is an autoimmune disease beta-cell function declines much faster than in T2D). For category 3 patients (defined as C-peptide values > 0.7 nmol/L), treatment decisions are made in response to changing C-peptide levels.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

On the basis of the patient's personal and family history together with his presentation, the likely diagnosis is latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). LADA is characterized by beta-cell loss and insulin resistance. This slowly evolving form of autoimmune diabetes comprises 2%-12% of all patients with adult-onset diabetes. Patients with LADA present with evidence of autoimmunity and varying C-peptide levels, which decrease more slowly in this subgroup than in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). They also have immunogenic markers associated with T1D, primarily anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibodies. 

Patients with LADA are often misdiagnosed as having T2D. The clinical picture of LADA overlaps with that of T2D, with patients being insulin resistant and often overweight. In addition, presenting symptoms of LADA — excessive thirst, blurred vision, and high blood glucose — are also seen in T2D. Although LADA is technically classified as T1D, some groups posit that the condition exists on a spectrum between T1D and T2D. Compared with patients with T2D, those with LADA are generally younger at diagnosis (often in their 30s), have lower BMI, and report a personal or family history of autoimmune diseases, such as the patient in this quiz. Throughout the disease course, individuals with LADA show a reduced frequency of metabolic syndrome compared with those with T2D.

Key to diagnosis is the absence of insulin requirement for at least 6 months. Anti-GAD antibodies are the most sensitive marker for LADA; other autoantibodies that occur less frequently include ICA, IA-2A, ZnT8A, and tetraspanin 7 autoantibodies. With a paucity of large-scale clinical trials in LADA, current treatment strategies are not based on consensus guidelines, though an expert panel has published management recommendations. Category 1 patients (defined as a C-peptide level < 0.3 nmol/L) are treated with intensive insulin therapy. The recommendation for category 2 patients (defined as C-peptide values ≥ 0.3 and ≤ 0.7 nmol/L) is a modified American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes algorithm for T2D. However, patients with category 2 LADA may need to initiate insulin therapy earlier to combat beta-cell failure (ostensibly because LADA is an autoimmune disease beta-cell function declines much faster than in T2D). For category 3 patients (defined as C-peptide values > 0.7 nmol/L), treatment decisions are made in response to changing C-peptide levels.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

On the basis of the patient's personal and family history together with his presentation, the likely diagnosis is latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). LADA is characterized by beta-cell loss and insulin resistance. This slowly evolving form of autoimmune diabetes comprises 2%-12% of all patients with adult-onset diabetes. Patients with LADA present with evidence of autoimmunity and varying C-peptide levels, which decrease more slowly in this subgroup than in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). They also have immunogenic markers associated with T1D, primarily anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibodies. 

Patients with LADA are often misdiagnosed as having T2D. The clinical picture of LADA overlaps with that of T2D, with patients being insulin resistant and often overweight. In addition, presenting symptoms of LADA — excessive thirst, blurred vision, and high blood glucose — are also seen in T2D. Although LADA is technically classified as T1D, some groups posit that the condition exists on a spectrum between T1D and T2D. Compared with patients with T2D, those with LADA are generally younger at diagnosis (often in their 30s), have lower BMI, and report a personal or family history of autoimmune diseases, such as the patient in this quiz. Throughout the disease course, individuals with LADA show a reduced frequency of metabolic syndrome compared with those with T2D.

Key to diagnosis is the absence of insulin requirement for at least 6 months. Anti-GAD antibodies are the most sensitive marker for LADA; other autoantibodies that occur less frequently include ICA, IA-2A, ZnT8A, and tetraspanin 7 autoantibodies. With a paucity of large-scale clinical trials in LADA, current treatment strategies are not based on consensus guidelines, though an expert panel has published management recommendations. Category 1 patients (defined as a C-peptide level < 0.3 nmol/L) are treated with intensive insulin therapy. The recommendation for category 2 patients (defined as C-peptide values ≥ 0.3 and ≤ 0.7 nmol/L) is a modified American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes algorithm for T2D. However, patients with category 2 LADA may need to initiate insulin therapy earlier to combat beta-cell failure (ostensibly because LADA is an autoimmune disease beta-cell function declines much faster than in T2D). For category 3 patients (defined as C-peptide values > 0.7 nmol/L), treatment decisions are made in response to changing C-peptide levels.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Feminine hygiene products have been commercially available for decades. They are commonly marketed to reduce odor or clean vaginal discharge and menses. Multiple formulas are available as topical washes, wipes, creams, sprays, powders, deodorants, and douches.¹ Products on the market range from those used externally on the vulva, such as wipes and sprays, to liquid solutions used intravaginally, such as washes and douches.

Who uses feminine hygiene products?

According to a 2006 study, the majority of women who use douches started using them between age 15 and 19 years, but some women initiate this practice habit as early as age 10 to 14.¹ Predictably, women who douche are more likely to perceive douche products as safe.¹

Demographic data on douche utilization are mixed: Some studies show that there are no significant racial differences in douching practices,² while others have found that Black and African American women are more likely to practice douching than White and Hispanic women.^1,3 Studies have shown a significant difference in attitudes toward douching and knowledge of normal vaginal symptoms among US racial demographics, although this must be examined through the historical context of racism and the lens of medical anthropology.⁴

Women cite that common reasons they use feminine hygiene products are to feel clean, to control odor, and to use after menses and intercourse.^1,2

Modern marketing approaches

From wipes to soaps to douches, feminine hygiene products often are advertised to promote “funk-free periods”⁵ and “freshness,” fostering an environment in which women and men develop unrealistic standards for what is considered normal genital odor and resulting in poor body image.⁶

Recently, Vagisil (Combe Incorporated) marketing efforts faced backlash from the ObGyn community for targeting younger populations with a specific product line for adolescents called OMV! In addition, attention has been drawn to VCF vaginal odor eliminating film (Apothecus Pharmaceutical Corp), small stamp-sized dissolving films that are placed in the vaginal canal in contact with the epithelium. This product has entered the market of feminine hygiene products accompanied by slogans of eliminating “feminine odor” and providing “confidence for women to be intimate.”

Continue to: Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome...

 

 

Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome

Frequent use of feminine hygiene products has been associated with recurrent vaginitis, bacterial vaginosis, and general irritation/itch,^7,8 which can cause more discharge and odor. Ironically, this may result in women using the product more frequently since they often seek out these products to eliminate odor and discharge.^1,2

The pH of the vagina changes during a woman’s lifetime, but in the reproductive years, the normal pH range is typically 3.8 to 4.4.⁹ This range allows for a normal vaginal flora to form with bacteria such as Lactobacillus species and Gardnerella vaginalis, while feminine hygiene products have a wide range of pH.^9,10

Regardless of the formulation, most feminine hygiene products contain ingredients and compositions that potentially are detrimental to the health of the vulva and vagina. Many products contain acidic ingredients, such as citric acid, lactic acid, and dehydroacetic acid, that can alter the vaginal pH and weaken the vaginal barrier by wiping out normal vaginal flora¹⁰ despite being advertised for use on “sensitive areas” (TABLE). Lactic acid also has been found to increase diverse anaerobic bacteria in the vaginal microbiome.¹¹ Some feminine hygiene products have been shown to suppress Lactobacillus growth at 2 hours after use and to kill all lactobacilli at 24 hours.¹⁰ Shifts in microbiota numbers often occur when the vaginal pH has been altered, as is frequently the case with feminine hygiene products. In the absence of microbiome bacteria, the presence of vaginal hygiene products has been shown to increase interleukin-8 (IL-8), suggesting a proinflammatory reaction.¹⁰

A study in the United Kingdom found that women who used bubble bath, antiseptics, or douche products had a higher incidence of bacterial vaginosis compared with women who did not use such products.⁷ Women in Canada who used feminine hygiene products were more likely to report adverse conditions, including yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, urinary tract infections, and sexually transmitted diseases.⁸ Furthermore, a significant association exists between vaginal douching and endometrial infection by bacterial vaginosis–associated organisms.¹²

Additionally, a study that analyzed volatile organic compound levels in the blood with the use of feminine hygiene products revealed a significant positive dose-exposure relationship between the frequency of vaginal douching in the last 6 months and concentrations of 1,4-dichloromethane, one of the volatile organic compounds.³ This points to the issue of not only disruption of pH and vaginal flora but also to the introduction of harmful substances that can further disrupt the vaginal barrier.

Understand the products to help educate patients

Use of feminine hygiene products is common among women. While women depend on the market to filter out products that are considered unsafe or may have harmful side effects,¹ unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. With increasingly more feminine products on the market and the target demographic becoming younger, women of all ages are susceptible to misinformation that could affect their vaginal health long term.

It is vital that clinicians understand the topical effects of these products in order to properly educate and counsel patients. Ultimately, research on feminine hygiene products is limited and, as more products come to market, we must continue to reassess the effects of topical products on the vaginal epithelium and vulvar tissues. ●

Feminine hygiene products have been commercially available for decades. They are commonly marketed to reduce odor or clean vaginal discharge and menses. Multiple formulas are available as topical washes, wipes, creams, sprays, powders, deodorants, and douches.¹ Products on the market range from those used externally on the vulva, such as wipes and sprays, to liquid solutions used intravaginally, such as washes and douches.

Who uses feminine hygiene products?

According to a 2006 study, the majority of women who use douches started using them between age 15 and 19 years, but some women initiate this practice habit as early as age 10 to 14.¹ Predictably, women who douche are more likely to perceive douche products as safe.¹

Demographic data on douche utilization are mixed: Some studies show that there are no significant racial differences in douching practices,² while others have found that Black and African American women are more likely to practice douching than White and Hispanic women.^1,3 Studies have shown a significant difference in attitudes toward douching and knowledge of normal vaginal symptoms among US racial demographics, although this must be examined through the historical context of racism and the lens of medical anthropology.⁴

Women cite that common reasons they use feminine hygiene products are to feel clean, to control odor, and to use after menses and intercourse.^1,2

Modern marketing approaches

From wipes to soaps to douches, feminine hygiene products often are advertised to promote “funk-free periods”⁵ and “freshness,” fostering an environment in which women and men develop unrealistic standards for what is considered normal genital odor and resulting in poor body image.⁶

Recently, Vagisil (Combe Incorporated) marketing efforts faced backlash from the ObGyn community for targeting younger populations with a specific product line for adolescents called OMV! In addition, attention has been drawn to VCF vaginal odor eliminating film (Apothecus Pharmaceutical Corp), small stamp-sized dissolving films that are placed in the vaginal canal in contact with the epithelium. This product has entered the market of feminine hygiene products accompanied by slogans of eliminating “feminine odor” and providing “confidence for women to be intimate.”

Continue to: Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome...

 

 

Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome

Frequent use of feminine hygiene products has been associated with recurrent vaginitis, bacterial vaginosis, and general irritation/itch,^7,8 which can cause more discharge and odor. Ironically, this may result in women using the product more frequently since they often seek out these products to eliminate odor and discharge.^1,2

The pH of the vagina changes during a woman’s lifetime, but in the reproductive years, the normal pH range is typically 3.8 to 4.4.⁹ This range allows for a normal vaginal flora to form with bacteria such as Lactobacillus species and Gardnerella vaginalis, while feminine hygiene products have a wide range of pH.^9,10

Regardless of the formulation, most feminine hygiene products contain ingredients and compositions that potentially are detrimental to the health of the vulva and vagina. Many products contain acidic ingredients, such as citric acid, lactic acid, and dehydroacetic acid, that can alter the vaginal pH and weaken the vaginal barrier by wiping out normal vaginal flora¹⁰ despite being advertised for use on “sensitive areas” (TABLE). Lactic acid also has been found to increase diverse anaerobic bacteria in the vaginal microbiome.¹¹ Some feminine hygiene products have been shown to suppress Lactobacillus growth at 2 hours after use and to kill all lactobacilli at 24 hours.¹⁰ Shifts in microbiota numbers often occur when the vaginal pH has been altered, as is frequently the case with feminine hygiene products. In the absence of microbiome bacteria, the presence of vaginal hygiene products has been shown to increase interleukin-8 (IL-8), suggesting a proinflammatory reaction.¹⁰

A study in the United Kingdom found that women who used bubble bath, antiseptics, or douche products had a higher incidence of bacterial vaginosis compared with women who did not use such products.⁷ Women in Canada who used feminine hygiene products were more likely to report adverse conditions, including yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, urinary tract infections, and sexually transmitted diseases.⁸ Furthermore, a significant association exists between vaginal douching and endometrial infection by bacterial vaginosis–associated organisms.¹²

Additionally, a study that analyzed volatile organic compound levels in the blood with the use of feminine hygiene products revealed a significant positive dose-exposure relationship between the frequency of vaginal douching in the last 6 months and concentrations of 1,4-dichloromethane, one of the volatile organic compounds.³ This points to the issue of not only disruption of pH and vaginal flora but also to the introduction of harmful substances that can further disrupt the vaginal barrier.

Understand the products to help educate patients

Use of feminine hygiene products is common among women. While women depend on the market to filter out products that are considered unsafe or may have harmful side effects,¹ unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. With increasingly more feminine products on the market and the target demographic becoming younger, women of all ages are susceptible to misinformation that could affect their vaginal health long term.

It is vital that clinicians understand the topical effects of these products in order to properly educate and counsel patients. Ultimately, research on feminine hygiene products is limited and, as more products come to market, we must continue to reassess the effects of topical products on the vaginal epithelium and vulvar tissues. ●

Feminine hygiene products have been commercially available for decades. They are commonly marketed to reduce odor or clean vaginal discharge and menses. Multiple formulas are available as topical washes, wipes, creams, sprays, powders, deodorants, and douches.¹ Products on the market range from those used externally on the vulva, such as wipes and sprays, to liquid solutions used intravaginally, such as washes and douches.

Who uses feminine hygiene products?

According to a 2006 study, the majority of women who use douches started using them between age 15 and 19 years, but some women initiate this practice habit as early as age 10 to 14.¹ Predictably, women who douche are more likely to perceive douche products as safe.¹

Demographic data on douche utilization are mixed: Some studies show that there are no significant racial differences in douching practices,² while others have found that Black and African American women are more likely to practice douching than White and Hispanic women.^1,3 Studies have shown a significant difference in attitudes toward douching and knowledge of normal vaginal symptoms among US racial demographics, although this must be examined through the historical context of racism and the lens of medical anthropology.⁴

Women cite that common reasons they use feminine hygiene products are to feel clean, to control odor, and to use after menses and intercourse.^1,2

Modern marketing approaches

From wipes to soaps to douches, feminine hygiene products often are advertised to promote “funk-free periods”⁵ and “freshness,” fostering an environment in which women and men develop unrealistic standards for what is considered normal genital odor and resulting in poor body image.⁶

Recently, Vagisil (Combe Incorporated) marketing efforts faced backlash from the ObGyn community for targeting younger populations with a specific product line for adolescents called OMV! In addition, attention has been drawn to VCF vaginal odor eliminating film (Apothecus Pharmaceutical Corp), small stamp-sized dissolving films that are placed in the vaginal canal in contact with the epithelium. This product has entered the market of feminine hygiene products accompanied by slogans of eliminating “feminine odor” and providing “confidence for women to be intimate.”

Continue to: Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome...

 

 

Effects of feminine hygiene products on the vaginal microbiome

Frequent use of feminine hygiene products has been associated with recurrent vaginitis, bacterial vaginosis, and general irritation/itch,^7,8 which can cause more discharge and odor. Ironically, this may result in women using the product more frequently since they often seek out these products to eliminate odor and discharge.^1,2

The pH of the vagina changes during a woman’s lifetime, but in the reproductive years, the normal pH range is typically 3.8 to 4.4.⁹ This range allows for a normal vaginal flora to form with bacteria such as Lactobacillus species and Gardnerella vaginalis, while feminine hygiene products have a wide range of pH.^9,10

Regardless of the formulation, most feminine hygiene products contain ingredients and compositions that potentially are detrimental to the health of the vulva and vagina. Many products contain acidic ingredients, such as citric acid, lactic acid, and dehydroacetic acid, that can alter the vaginal pH and weaken the vaginal barrier by wiping out normal vaginal flora¹⁰ despite being advertised for use on “sensitive areas” (TABLE). Lactic acid also has been found to increase diverse anaerobic bacteria in the vaginal microbiome.¹¹ Some feminine hygiene products have been shown to suppress Lactobacillus growth at 2 hours after use and to kill all lactobacilli at 24 hours.¹⁰ Shifts in microbiota numbers often occur when the vaginal pH has been altered, as is frequently the case with feminine hygiene products. In the absence of microbiome bacteria, the presence of vaginal hygiene products has been shown to increase interleukin-8 (IL-8), suggesting a proinflammatory reaction.¹⁰

A study in the United Kingdom found that women who used bubble bath, antiseptics, or douche products had a higher incidence of bacterial vaginosis compared with women who did not use such products.⁷ Women in Canada who used feminine hygiene products were more likely to report adverse conditions, including yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, urinary tract infections, and sexually transmitted diseases.⁸ Furthermore, a significant association exists between vaginal douching and endometrial infection by bacterial vaginosis–associated organisms.¹²

Additionally, a study that analyzed volatile organic compound levels in the blood with the use of feminine hygiene products revealed a significant positive dose-exposure relationship between the frequency of vaginal douching in the last 6 months and concentrations of 1,4-dichloromethane, one of the volatile organic compounds.³ This points to the issue of not only disruption of pH and vaginal flora but also to the introduction of harmful substances that can further disrupt the vaginal barrier.

Understand the products to help educate patients

Use of feminine hygiene products is common among women. While women depend on the market to filter out products that are considered unsafe or may have harmful side effects,¹ unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. With increasingly more feminine products on the market and the target demographic becoming younger, women of all ages are susceptible to misinformation that could affect their vaginal health long term.

It is vital that clinicians understand the topical effects of these products in order to properly educate and counsel patients. Ultimately, research on feminine hygiene products is limited and, as more products come to market, we must continue to reassess the effects of topical products on the vaginal epithelium and vulvar tissues. ●

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

 

 

What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

 

 

What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

 

 

What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●