VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

Disturbances in the gut may help explain why some patients with schizophrenia are aggressive whereas others are not, new research suggests. However, at least one expert expressed concerns over the study’s conclusions.

Results from a study of 50 inpatients with schizophrenia showed significantly higher pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation, and leaky gut biomarkers in those with aggression vs. their peers who did not display aggression.

In addition, those with aggression showed less alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community, lower levels of several beneficial gut bacteria, and higher levels of the fecal genera Prevotella.

Six short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and six neurotransmitters were also lower in the aggression vs. no-aggression groups.

“The present study was the first to compare the state of inflammation, oxidation, intestinal microbiota, and metabolites” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression, compared with those who did not show aggression, write the investigators, led by Hongxin Deng, department of psychiatry, Zhumadian (China) Psychiatric Hospital.

“Results indicate pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut phenotypes relating to enteric dysbacteriosis and microbial SCFAs feature the aggression in [individuals with schizophrenia], which provides clues for future microbial-based or anti-inflammatory/oxidative therapies on aggression,” they add.

The findings were published online in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Unknown pathogenesis

Although emerging evidence suggests that schizophrenia “may augment the propensity for aggression incidence about fourfold to sevenfold,” the pathogenesis of aggression “remains largely unknown,” the investigators note.

The same researchers previously found an association between the systemic pro-inflammation response and the onset or severity of aggression in schizophrenia, “possibly caused by leaky gut-induced bacterial translocation.”

The researchers suggest that peripheral cytokines “could cross the blood-brain barrier, thus precipitating changes in mood and behavior through hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.”

However, they note that the pro-inflammation phenotype is “often a synergistic effect of multiple causes.” Of these, chronic pro-oxidative stress has been shown to contribute to aggression onset in intermittent explosive disorder, but this association has rarely been confirmed in patients with schizophrenia.

In addition, increasing evidence points to enteric dysbacteriosis and dysbiosis of intestinal flora metabolites, including SCFAs or neurotransmitters, as potentially “integral parts of psychiatric disorders’ pathophysiology” by changing the state of both oxidative stress and inflammation.

The investigators hypothesized that the systemic pro-inflammation phenotype in aggression-affected schizophrenia cases “involves alterations to gut microbiota and its metabolites, leaky gut, and oxidative stress.” However, the profiles of these variables and their interrelationships have been “poorly investigated” in inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression.

To fill this gap, they assessed adult psychiatric inpatients with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviors and inpatients with schizophrenia but no aggressive behavior within 1 week before admission (n = 25 per group; mean age, 33.52 years, and 32.88 years, respectively; 68% and 64% women, respectively).

They collected stool samples from each patient and used enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to detect fecal calprotectin protein, an indicator of intestinal inflammation. They also collected fasting peripheral blood samples, using ELISA to detect several biomarkers.

The researchers also used the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to characterize aggressive behaviors and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to characterize psychiatric symptoms.
 

‘Vital role’

Significantly higher biomarkers for systemic pro-inflammation, pro-oxidation and leaky gut were found in the aggression vs the no-aggression group (all P < .05).

After controlling for potential confounders, the researchers also found positive associations between MOAS scores and biomarkers, both serum and fecal.

There were also positive associations between serum 8-hydroxy-20-deoxy-guanosine (8-OH-DG) or 8-isoprostane (8-ISO) and systemic inflammatory biomarkers (all R > 0; P < .05).

In addition, the alpha diversity and evenness of the fecal bacterial community were lower in the aggression vs. no aggression groups.

When the researchers compared the relative abundance of the top 15 genera composition of intestinal microflora in the two groups, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Collinsella, and Eubacterium coprostanoligenes were “remarkably reduced” in the group with aggression, whereas the abundance of fecal genera Prevotella was significantly increased (all corrected P < .001).

In the patients who had schizophrenia with aggression, levels of six SCFAs and six neurotransmitters were much lower than in the patients with schizophrenia but no aggression (all P < .05).

Inpatients with schizophrenia and aggression “had dramatically increased serum level of 8-OH-DG (nucleic acid oxidation biomarker) and 8-ISO (lipid oxidation biomarker) than those without, and further correlation analysis also showed positive correlativity between pro-oxidation and systemic pro-inflammation response or aggression severity,” the investigators write.

The findings “collectively suggest the cocontributory role of systemic pro-inflammation and pro-oxidation in the development of aggression” in schizophrenia, they add. “Gut dysbacteriosis with leaky gut seems to play a vital role in the pathophysiology.”
 

Correlation vs. causality

Commenting for this article, Emeran Mayer, MD, distinguished research professor of medicine at the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience and UCLA Brain Gut Microbiome Center, Los Angeles, said that “at first glance, it is interesting that the behavioral trait of aggression but not the diagnosis of schizophrenia showed the differences in markers of systemic inflammation, increased gut permeability, and microbiome parameters.”

However, like many such descriptive studies, the research is flawed by comparing two patient groups and concluding causality between the biomarkers and the behavior traits, added Dr. Mayer, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s shortcomings include its small sample size as well as several confounding factors – particularly diet, sleep, exercise, and stress and anxiety levels – that were not considered, he said. The study also lacked a control group with high levels of aggression but without schizophrenia.

“The observed changes in intestinal permeability, unscientifically referred to as ‘leaky gut,’ as well as the gut microbiome differences, could be secondary to chronically increased sympathetic nervous system activation in the high aggression group,” Dr. Mayer said. “This is an interesting hypothesis which should be discussed and should have been addressed in this study.”

The differences in gut microbial composition and SCFA production “could be secondary to differences in plant-based diet components,” Dr. Mayer speculated, wondering how well dietary intake was controlled.

“Overall, it is an interesting descriptive study, which unfortunately does not contribute significantly to a better understanding of the role of the brain-gut microbiome system in schizophrenic patients,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mayer is a scientific advisory board member of Danone, Axial Therapeutics, Viome, Amare, Mahana Therapeutics, Pendulum, Bloom Biosciences, and APC Microbiome Ireland.

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

People who eat a balanced diet with sufficient antioxidants from fruits and vegetables may face reduced risks for Heliobacter pylori infections, according to a new report.

In particular, patients with an H. pylori infection were more likely to score lower on the Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI), which was created to consider a diet’s entire antioxidant profile.

“Available evidence indicates that diet has an important role in developing H. pylori infection. Therefore, protective dietary factors are important from a public health point of view,” Farzad Shidfar, a professor of nutrition at the Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, and member of the university’s colorectal research center, and colleagues write.

“While some nutritional research has widely focused on single nutrients or foods in diet-disease relations, the overall diet could be more informative because humans typically consume a combination of nutrients and foods,” they write. “Dietary indices such as DAI are one of the approaches for this purpose.”

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Measuring antioxidant intake

Previous research has indicated an inverse association between the DAI and inflammatory diseases, the study authors write, including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity. Studies have also indicated that H. pylori infection is related to deficiencies in vitamins A, C, and E, which have antioxidant properties.

In a case-control study, the research team compared the dietary intake of 148 patients with H. pylori to 302 healthy controls without infection. The patients in the H. pylori–positive group were recruited between June 2021 and November 2021 from the gastroenterology clinic at Rasoul-e-Akram Hospital in Tehran, where they were newly diagnosed with active infection and not yet under treatment.

The researchers calculated the DAI based on dietary intake information from a validated, 168-item food frequency questionnaire used in Iran. The participants were asked about their dietary intake based on the average day, week, month, and year. They also discussed serving sizes of food items, and to increase the accuracy of estimates, interviewers showed household measurements or serving sizes to confirm the measurements with participants.

The average age of the study participants was 39 years, and about 60% were women. Compared with the healthy controls, those with H. pylori were significantly older, had higher body mass index, and smoked more.

Overall, patients with H. pylori had a significantly lower intake of vitamin A, vitamin E, manganese, and selenium. Other differences in dietary intake – for vitamin C and zinc – were not significant.

The average total DAI was significantly higher in the healthy controls, at 7.67, as compared with 3.57 in the patients with H. pylori. The risk for infection decreased as continuous DAI increased.

After adjusting for several variables, the researchers found that participants with less than the median DAI values had an increased risk of developing an H. pylori infection.

“A balanced diet, especially high consumption of fruits and vegetables, might protect people against the consequences of H. pylori infection,” the study authors write. “On the contrary, a diet full of carbohydrates and sweets is related to a higher H. pylori infection prevalence.”
 

Why a good diet may help combat infection

The findings are consistent with other studies that have noted a higher intake of fruits and vegetables among healthy people compared with those who have H. pylori infections, the study authors write. Animal studies have also indicated that taking vitamins A, C, and E and selenium can lead to a reduction in H. pylori growth.

“Several biologically plausible reasons may explain why dietary antioxidants might be, either directly or indirectly, a protective factor against H. pylori infection,” the researchers write. “It is well-known that antioxidants, with their free radical scavenging activities, can inhibit the growth of H. pylori.”

H. pylori is urease-positive and can synthesize a large amount of urease for ammonia production to neutralize gastric acid, which allows it to colonize in the stomach epithelium, the study authors write. Vitamin C inhibits urease activity and improves the stimulation of granulocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and immunoglobulin production. Other nutrients, such as zinc, may inhibit the urease enzyme and prevent H. pylori adhesion to gastric tissues, they write.

“Dietary elements have previously been shown to dramatically alter pathogenic responses to H. pylori infections,” Richard Peek Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved with this study, and colleagues found that iron deficiency is linked with altered bile metabolism, which can promote H. pylori–induced gastric carcinogenesis.

“The current study is important, as it suggests that shifting to a diet rich in antioxidants may be beneficial in terms of H. pylori infection,” he said.

At the same time, Dr. Peek expressed caution about generalizing the results across populations.

“Most of the persons enrolled in this study were likely infected with H. pylori as children,” he noted. “Therefore, the inverse role of antioxidant-rich diets and H. pylori infection must be interpreted with caution.”

Future studies should confirm the findings in other groups and determine whether antioxidant-rich diets limit the diseases caused by H. pylori infection, Dr. Peek added.

The study was not funded by any research center, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Peek reported no relevant disclosures.

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

People who eat a balanced diet with sufficient antioxidants from fruits and vegetables may face reduced risks for Heliobacter pylori infections, according to a new report.

In particular, patients with an H. pylori infection were more likely to score lower on the Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI), which was created to consider a diet’s entire antioxidant profile.

“Available evidence indicates that diet has an important role in developing H. pylori infection. Therefore, protective dietary factors are important from a public health point of view,” Farzad Shidfar, a professor of nutrition at the Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, and member of the university’s colorectal research center, and colleagues write.

“While some nutritional research has widely focused on single nutrients or foods in diet-disease relations, the overall diet could be more informative because humans typically consume a combination of nutrients and foods,” they write. “Dietary indices such as DAI are one of the approaches for this purpose.”

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Measuring antioxidant intake

Previous research has indicated an inverse association between the DAI and inflammatory diseases, the study authors write, including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity. Studies have also indicated that H. pylori infection is related to deficiencies in vitamins A, C, and E, which have antioxidant properties.

In a case-control study, the research team compared the dietary intake of 148 patients with H. pylori to 302 healthy controls without infection. The patients in the H. pylori–positive group were recruited between June 2021 and November 2021 from the gastroenterology clinic at Rasoul-e-Akram Hospital in Tehran, where they were newly diagnosed with active infection and not yet under treatment.

The researchers calculated the DAI based on dietary intake information from a validated, 168-item food frequency questionnaire used in Iran. The participants were asked about their dietary intake based on the average day, week, month, and year. They also discussed serving sizes of food items, and to increase the accuracy of estimates, interviewers showed household measurements or serving sizes to confirm the measurements with participants.

The average age of the study participants was 39 years, and about 60% were women. Compared with the healthy controls, those with H. pylori were significantly older, had higher body mass index, and smoked more.

Overall, patients with H. pylori had a significantly lower intake of vitamin A, vitamin E, manganese, and selenium. Other differences in dietary intake – for vitamin C and zinc – were not significant.

The average total DAI was significantly higher in the healthy controls, at 7.67, as compared with 3.57 in the patients with H. pylori. The risk for infection decreased as continuous DAI increased.

After adjusting for several variables, the researchers found that participants with less than the median DAI values had an increased risk of developing an H. pylori infection.

“A balanced diet, especially high consumption of fruits and vegetables, might protect people against the consequences of H. pylori infection,” the study authors write. “On the contrary, a diet full of carbohydrates and sweets is related to a higher H. pylori infection prevalence.”
 

Why a good diet may help combat infection

The findings are consistent with other studies that have noted a higher intake of fruits and vegetables among healthy people compared with those who have H. pylori infections, the study authors write. Animal studies have also indicated that taking vitamins A, C, and E and selenium can lead to a reduction in H. pylori growth.

“Several biologically plausible reasons may explain why dietary antioxidants might be, either directly or indirectly, a protective factor against H. pylori infection,” the researchers write. “It is well-known that antioxidants, with their free radical scavenging activities, can inhibit the growth of H. pylori.”

H. pylori is urease-positive and can synthesize a large amount of urease for ammonia production to neutralize gastric acid, which allows it to colonize in the stomach epithelium, the study authors write. Vitamin C inhibits urease activity and improves the stimulation of granulocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and immunoglobulin production. Other nutrients, such as zinc, may inhibit the urease enzyme and prevent H. pylori adhesion to gastric tissues, they write.

“Dietary elements have previously been shown to dramatically alter pathogenic responses to H. pylori infections,” Richard Peek Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved with this study, and colleagues found that iron deficiency is linked with altered bile metabolism, which can promote H. pylori–induced gastric carcinogenesis.

“The current study is important, as it suggests that shifting to a diet rich in antioxidants may be beneficial in terms of H. pylori infection,” he said.

At the same time, Dr. Peek expressed caution about generalizing the results across populations.

“Most of the persons enrolled in this study were likely infected with H. pylori as children,” he noted. “Therefore, the inverse role of antioxidant-rich diets and H. pylori infection must be interpreted with caution.”

Future studies should confirm the findings in other groups and determine whether antioxidant-rich diets limit the diseases caused by H. pylori infection, Dr. Peek added.

The study was not funded by any research center, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Peek reported no relevant disclosures.

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

People who eat a balanced diet with sufficient antioxidants from fruits and vegetables may face reduced risks for Heliobacter pylori infections, according to a new report.

In particular, patients with an H. pylori infection were more likely to score lower on the Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI), which was created to consider a diet’s entire antioxidant profile.

“Available evidence indicates that diet has an important role in developing H. pylori infection. Therefore, protective dietary factors are important from a public health point of view,” Farzad Shidfar, a professor of nutrition at the Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, and member of the university’s colorectal research center, and colleagues write.

“While some nutritional research has widely focused on single nutrients or foods in diet-disease relations, the overall diet could be more informative because humans typically consume a combination of nutrients and foods,” they write. “Dietary indices such as DAI are one of the approaches for this purpose.”

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Measuring antioxidant intake

Previous research has indicated an inverse association between the DAI and inflammatory diseases, the study authors write, including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity. Studies have also indicated that H. pylori infection is related to deficiencies in vitamins A, C, and E, which have antioxidant properties.

In a case-control study, the research team compared the dietary intake of 148 patients with H. pylori to 302 healthy controls without infection. The patients in the H. pylori–positive group were recruited between June 2021 and November 2021 from the gastroenterology clinic at Rasoul-e-Akram Hospital in Tehran, where they were newly diagnosed with active infection and not yet under treatment.

The researchers calculated the DAI based on dietary intake information from a validated, 168-item food frequency questionnaire used in Iran. The participants were asked about their dietary intake based on the average day, week, month, and year. They also discussed serving sizes of food items, and to increase the accuracy of estimates, interviewers showed household measurements or serving sizes to confirm the measurements with participants.

The average age of the study participants was 39 years, and about 60% were women. Compared with the healthy controls, those with H. pylori were significantly older, had higher body mass index, and smoked more.

Overall, patients with H. pylori had a significantly lower intake of vitamin A, vitamin E, manganese, and selenium. Other differences in dietary intake – for vitamin C and zinc – were not significant.

The average total DAI was significantly higher in the healthy controls, at 7.67, as compared with 3.57 in the patients with H. pylori. The risk for infection decreased as continuous DAI increased.

After adjusting for several variables, the researchers found that participants with less than the median DAI values had an increased risk of developing an H. pylori infection.

“A balanced diet, especially high consumption of fruits and vegetables, might protect people against the consequences of H. pylori infection,” the study authors write. “On the contrary, a diet full of carbohydrates and sweets is related to a higher H. pylori infection prevalence.”
 

Why a good diet may help combat infection

The findings are consistent with other studies that have noted a higher intake of fruits and vegetables among healthy people compared with those who have H. pylori infections, the study authors write. Animal studies have also indicated that taking vitamins A, C, and E and selenium can lead to a reduction in H. pylori growth.

“Several biologically plausible reasons may explain why dietary antioxidants might be, either directly or indirectly, a protective factor against H. pylori infection,” the researchers write. “It is well-known that antioxidants, with their free radical scavenging activities, can inhibit the growth of H. pylori.”

H. pylori is urease-positive and can synthesize a large amount of urease for ammonia production to neutralize gastric acid, which allows it to colonize in the stomach epithelium, the study authors write. Vitamin C inhibits urease activity and improves the stimulation of granulocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and immunoglobulin production. Other nutrients, such as zinc, may inhibit the urease enzyme and prevent H. pylori adhesion to gastric tissues, they write.

“Dietary elements have previously been shown to dramatically alter pathogenic responses to H. pylori infections,” Richard Peek Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved with this study, and colleagues found that iron deficiency is linked with altered bile metabolism, which can promote H. pylori–induced gastric carcinogenesis.

“The current study is important, as it suggests that shifting to a diet rich in antioxidants may be beneficial in terms of H. pylori infection,” he said.

At the same time, Dr. Peek expressed caution about generalizing the results across populations.

“Most of the persons enrolled in this study were likely infected with H. pylori as children,” he noted. “Therefore, the inverse role of antioxidant-rich diets and H. pylori infection must be interpreted with caution.”

Future studies should confirm the findings in other groups and determine whether antioxidant-rich diets limit the diseases caused by H. pylori infection, Dr. Peek added.

The study was not funded by any research center, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Peek reported no relevant disclosures.

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

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

Misoprostol: Clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2022)

Outcomes from my practice’s pilot study

In his recent editorial, Dr. Barbieri addressed the important topic of office-based cervical ripening prior to inpatient induction of labor. In order to decrease the length of labor and increase the success of vaginal delivery, the cervical factor is of prime importance. Patients with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score of ≥6) are more likely to experience longer labor, risk of infection, fetal distress, etc, and may end up with an unwanted cesarean delivery. To prevent the above, numerous approaches (mechanical methods, double-balloon catheter, laminaria, misoprostol among others) have been discussed.

The inclusion criteria for office-based cervical ripening are low-risk patients, singleton pregnancies between 39 and 40 weeks of gestation, and cephalic presentation. The details of inclusion and exclusion criteria have to be determined by each practice individually. Our practice went a step further. We performed a small pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of office cervical ripening in low-risk primigravid patients with low Bishop scores who were not scheduled for induction in anticipation of labor. Ten primigravid patients with poor Bishop scores (6 or less) were administered 50 µg misoprostol at 39+ weeks of pregnancy in the office setting. Bishop scores were taken twice per week until delivery. In 7 out of 10 patients, the Bishop score became favorable within a week of treatment, and in 3 patients the Bishop score remained the same. Three out of 10 patients experienced self-limited episodes of uterine contractility, and 2 of the patients went into labor within 3 days of using misoprostol. All patients were delivered within 2 weeks of treatment without an induction: 8 delivered vaginally, and 2 by cesarean delivery.²

Cesarean delivery was done for fetal distress (1 case) and prolonged second stage of labor (1 case). All neonates were born in satisfactory condition with Apgar scores between 7 and 10. Our preliminary results demonstrated marked improvement in cervical ripening judged by the Bishop score in 70% of patients.²

A prospective randomized study should be performed with the following agenda:

• Does late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients affect labor course and cesarean delivery rate?
• What is the optimal dose and route of administration of misoprostol?^3,4

References

1. Barbieri R. Office-based ambulatory cervical ripening prior to in patient induction of labor. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-13.
2. Petrikovsky B. Should cervical ripening become routine in primigravid low risk patients [In press]. Neonat Int Care. 2022:1, 4-6.
3. Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R. Comparison of 25 µg sublingual and 50 µg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Med. 2014:10:653-656.
4. Barbieri R. Misoprostol: clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology. OBG Manag. 2022:34:7, 8-12.

B. Petrikovsky, MD, PhD

New Hyde Park, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I appreciate that Dr. Petrikovsky took time from a busy practice to provide our readers with his very innovative idea. I agree with him that a clinical trial is warranted to test the effects of late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients on labor course and birth outcome. Maybe one of our readers will take on the challenge to complete such a trial! ●

Misoprostol: Clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2022)

Outcomes from my practice’s pilot study

In his recent editorial, Dr. Barbieri addressed the important topic of office-based cervical ripening prior to inpatient induction of labor. In order to decrease the length of labor and increase the success of vaginal delivery, the cervical factor is of prime importance. Patients with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score of ≥6) are more likely to experience longer labor, risk of infection, fetal distress, etc, and may end up with an unwanted cesarean delivery. To prevent the above, numerous approaches (mechanical methods, double-balloon catheter, laminaria, misoprostol among others) have been discussed.

The inclusion criteria for office-based cervical ripening are low-risk patients, singleton pregnancies between 39 and 40 weeks of gestation, and cephalic presentation. The details of inclusion and exclusion criteria have to be determined by each practice individually. Our practice went a step further. We performed a small pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of office cervical ripening in low-risk primigravid patients with low Bishop scores who were not scheduled for induction in anticipation of labor. Ten primigravid patients with poor Bishop scores (6 or less) were administered 50 µg misoprostol at 39+ weeks of pregnancy in the office setting. Bishop scores were taken twice per week until delivery. In 7 out of 10 patients, the Bishop score became favorable within a week of treatment, and in 3 patients the Bishop score remained the same. Three out of 10 patients experienced self-limited episodes of uterine contractility, and 2 of the patients went into labor within 3 days of using misoprostol. All patients were delivered within 2 weeks of treatment without an induction: 8 delivered vaginally, and 2 by cesarean delivery.²

Cesarean delivery was done for fetal distress (1 case) and prolonged second stage of labor (1 case). All neonates were born in satisfactory condition with Apgar scores between 7 and 10. Our preliminary results demonstrated marked improvement in cervical ripening judged by the Bishop score in 70% of patients.²

A prospective randomized study should be performed with the following agenda:

• Does late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients affect labor course and cesarean delivery rate?
• What is the optimal dose and route of administration of misoprostol?^3,4

References

1. Barbieri R. Office-based ambulatory cervical ripening prior to in patient induction of labor. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-13.
2. Petrikovsky B. Should cervical ripening become routine in primigravid low risk patients [In press]. Neonat Int Care. 2022:1, 4-6.
3. Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R. Comparison of 25 µg sublingual and 50 µg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Med. 2014:10:653-656.
4. Barbieri R. Misoprostol: clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology. OBG Manag. 2022:34:7, 8-12.

B. Petrikovsky, MD, PhD

New Hyde Park, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I appreciate that Dr. Petrikovsky took time from a busy practice to provide our readers with his very innovative idea. I agree with him that a clinical trial is warranted to test the effects of late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients on labor course and birth outcome. Maybe one of our readers will take on the challenge to complete such a trial! ●

Misoprostol: Clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (JULY 2022)

Outcomes from my practice’s pilot study

In his recent editorial, Dr. Barbieri addressed the important topic of office-based cervical ripening prior to inpatient induction of labor. In order to decrease the length of labor and increase the success of vaginal delivery, the cervical factor is of prime importance. Patients with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score of ≥6) are more likely to experience longer labor, risk of infection, fetal distress, etc, and may end up with an unwanted cesarean delivery. To prevent the above, numerous approaches (mechanical methods, double-balloon catheter, laminaria, misoprostol among others) have been discussed.

The inclusion criteria for office-based cervical ripening are low-risk patients, singleton pregnancies between 39 and 40 weeks of gestation, and cephalic presentation. The details of inclusion and exclusion criteria have to be determined by each practice individually. Our practice went a step further. We performed a small pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of office cervical ripening in low-risk primigravid patients with low Bishop scores who were not scheduled for induction in anticipation of labor. Ten primigravid patients with poor Bishop scores (6 or less) were administered 50 µg misoprostol at 39+ weeks of pregnancy in the office setting. Bishop scores were taken twice per week until delivery. In 7 out of 10 patients, the Bishop score became favorable within a week of treatment, and in 3 patients the Bishop score remained the same. Three out of 10 patients experienced self-limited episodes of uterine contractility, and 2 of the patients went into labor within 3 days of using misoprostol. All patients were delivered within 2 weeks of treatment without an induction: 8 delivered vaginally, and 2 by cesarean delivery.²

Cesarean delivery was done for fetal distress (1 case) and prolonged second stage of labor (1 case). All neonates were born in satisfactory condition with Apgar scores between 7 and 10. Our preliminary results demonstrated marked improvement in cervical ripening judged by the Bishop score in 70% of patients.²

A prospective randomized study should be performed with the following agenda:

• Does late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients affect labor course and cesarean delivery rate?
• What is the optimal dose and route of administration of misoprostol?^3,4

References

1. Barbieri R. Office-based ambulatory cervical ripening prior to in patient induction of labor. OBG Manag. 2021;33:9-13.
2. Petrikovsky B. Should cervical ripening become routine in primigravid low risk patients [In press]. Neonat Int Care. 2022:1, 4-6.
3. Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R. Comparison of 25 µg sublingual and 50 µg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Med. 2014:10:653-656.
4. Barbieri R. Misoprostol: clinical pharmacology in obstetrics and gynecology. OBG Manag. 2022:34:7, 8-12.

B. Petrikovsky, MD, PhD

New Hyde Park, New York

Dr. Barbieri responds

I appreciate that Dr. Petrikovsky took time from a busy practice to provide our readers with his very innovative idea. I agree with him that a clinical trial is warranted to test the effects of late pregnancy medical cervical ripening in low-risk patients on labor course and birth outcome. Maybe one of our readers will take on the challenge to complete such a trial! ●

ILLUSTRATION: COPYRIGHT KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Patient desires prolapse repair

A 65-year-old postmenopausal patient (G3P3) presents to your office with symptoms of a vaginal bulge for more than 1 year. She has no urinary incontinence symptoms and no bowel dysfunction symptoms. On examination, you diagnose stage 2 uterovaginal prolapse with both anterior and apical defects. The patient declines expectant and pessary management and desires surgery, but she states that she feels her uterus “is important for me to keep, as my babies grew in there and it is part of me.” She denies any family or personal history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer and has no history of abnormal cervical cancer screening or postmenopausal bleeding. What are the options for this patient?

Who is the appropriate hysteropexy patient, and how do we counsel her?

Uterine prolapse is the third leading cause of benign hysterectomy, with approximately 70,000 procedures performed each year in the United States. It has long been acknowledged that the uterus is a passive bystander to the prolapse process,¹ but modern practice often involves a hysterectomy as part of addressing apical prolapse. However, more and more uterine-preserving surgeries are being performed, with one study showing an increase from 1.8% to 5% from 2002 and 2012.²

When presented with the option to keep or remove their uterus during the time of prolapse surgery, 36% of patients indicated that they would prefer to keep their uterus with similar outcomes while 21% would still prefer uterine preservation even if outcomes were inferior compared with hysterectomy.³ Another study showed that 60% of patients would decline concurrent hysterectomy if there were equal surgical outcomes,⁴ and popular platforms, such as Health magazine (www.health.com) and AARP magazine (www.aarp.org), have listed benign hysterectomy as a “top surgery to avoid.”

Patients desire uterine preservation for many reasons, including concerns about sexual function and pleasure, the uterus being important to their sense of identity or womanhood, and concerns around menopausal symptoms. Early patient counseling and discussion of surgical goals can help clinicians fully understand a patient’s thoughts toward uterine preservation. Women who identified their uterus as important to their sense of self had a 28.2-times chance of preferring uterine preservation.³ Frequently, concerns about menopausal symptoms are more directly related to hormones and ovary removal, not uterus removal, but clinicians should be careful to also counsel patients on the increased risk of menopause in the 5 years after hysterectomy, even with ovarian preservation.⁵

There are some patients for whom experts do not recommend uterine preservation.⁶ Patients with an increased risk of cervical or endometrial pathology should be counseled on the benefits of hysterectomy. Additionally, patients who have abnormal uterine bleeding from benign pathology should consider hysterectomy to treat these issues and avoid future workups (TABLE). For postmenopausal patients with recent postmenopausal bleeding, we encourage hysterectomy. A study of patients undergoing hysterectomy at the time of prolapse repair found a rate of 13% unanticipated endometrial pathology with postmenopausal bleeding and negative preoperative workup.⁷

At this time, a majority of clinicians consider the desire for future fertility to be a relative contraindication to surgical prolapse repair and advise conservative management with pessary until childbearing is complete. This is reasonable, given the paucity of safety data in subsequent pregnancies as well as the lack of prolapse outcomes after those pregnancies.^8,9 Lastly, cervical elongation is considered a relative contraindication, as it represents a risk for surgical failure.^10,11 This may be counteracted with trachelectomy at the time of hysteropexy or surgeries such as the Manchester repair, which involve a trachelectomy routinely,¹² but currently there is no strong evidence for this as routine practice.

Continue to: Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes...

Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes

Le Fort colpocleisis

First described in 1840 by Neugebauer of Poland and later by Le Fort in Paris in 1877, the Le Fort colpocleisis repair technique remains the most reliable prolapse surgery to date.¹⁴ The uterus is left in place while the vagina is narrowed and shortened. It typically also is performed with a levator plication to reduce the genital hiatus.

This procedure is quick and effective, with a 90% to 95% success rate. If necessary, it can be performed under local or regional anesthesia, making it a good option for medically frail patients. It is not an option for everyone, however, as penetrative intercourse is no longer an option after surgery. Studies suggest an approximately 13% dissatisfaction rate after the procedure, with most of that coming from postoperative urinary symptoms, such as urgency or stress incontinence,¹⁵ and some studies show a dissatisfaction rate as low as 0% in a well-counseled patient population.^16,17

Vaginal native tissue hysteropexy

Many patients who elect for uterine preservation at the time of prolapse surgery are “minimalists,” meaning that a vaginal native tissue procedure appeals to them due to the lack of abdominal incisions, decreased operating room time, and lack of permanent graft materials.

Of all the hysteropexy procedures, sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) has the most robust data available. The approach to SSHP can be tailored to the patient’s anatomy and it is performed in a manner similar to posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation. The traditional posterior approach can be used with predominantly posterior prolapse, while an apical approach through a semilunar paracervical incision can be used for predominantly apical prolapse. Expert surgeons agree that one key to success is anchoring the suspension sutures through the cervical stroma, not just the vaginal epithelium.

Researchers in the Netherlands published the 5-year outcomes of a randomized trial that compared SSHP with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.¹⁸ Their data showed no difference between groups in composite failure, reoperation rates, quality of life measures, and postoperative sexual function. Adverse events were very similar to those reported for posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation, including 15% transient buttock pain. Of note, the same authors explored risk factors for recurrence after SSHP and found that higher body mass index, smoking, and a large point Ba measurement were risk factors for prolapse recurrence.¹⁹

A randomized, controlled trial in the United Kingdom (the VUE trial) compared vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension to uterine preservation with a variety of apical suspension techniques, mostly SSHP, and demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes.²⁰ Overall, SSHP is an excellent option for many patients interested in uterine preservation.

Uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USHP), when performed vaginally, is very similar to uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of vaginal hysterectomy, with entry into the peritoneal cavity through a posterior colpotomy. The uterosacral ligaments are grasped and delayed absorbable suture placed through the ligaments and anchored into the posterior cervical stroma. Given the maintenance of the normal axis of the vagina, USHP is a good technique for patients with isolated apical defects. Unfortunately, the least amount of quality data is available for USHP at this time. Currently, evidence suggests that complications are rare and that the procedure may offer acceptable anatomic and symptomatic outcomes.²¹ Some surgeons approach the uterosacral suspension laparoscopically, which also has mixed results in the literature, with failure rates between 8% and 27% and few robust studies.^22–24

The Manchester-Fothergill operation, currently not common in the United States but popular in Europe, primarily is considered a treatment for cervical elongation when the uterosacral ligaments are intact. In this procedure, trachelectomy is performed and the uterosacral ligaments are plicated to the uterine body. Sturmdorf sutures are frequently placed to close off the endometrial canal, which can lead to hematometra and other complications of cervical stenosis. Previous unmatched studies have shown similar outcomes with the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy.^25,26

The largest study currently available is a registry study from Denmark, with matched cohort populations, that compared the Manchester procedure, SSHP, and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁷ This study indicated less morbidity related to the Manchester procedure, decreased anterior recurrence compared with SSHP, and a 7% reoperation rate.²⁷ The same authors also established better cost-effectiveness with the Manchester procedure as opposed to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁸

Continue to: Vaginal mesh hysteropexy...

Hysteropexy using vaginal mesh is limited in the United States given the removal of vaginal mesh kits from the market by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. However, a Pelvic Floor Disorders Network randomized trial compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy using the Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁹ At 5 years, mesh hysteropexy had fewer failures than hysterectomy (37% vs 54%) and there was no difference in retreatment (9% vs 13%). The authors noted an 8% mesh exposure rate in the mesh hysteropexy group but 12% granulation tissue and 21% suture exposure rate in the hysterectomy group.²⁹

While vaginal mesh hysteropexy was effective in the treatment of apical prolapse, the elevated mesh exposure rate and postoperative complications ultimately led to its removal from the market.

Sacrohysteropexy

Lastly, prolapse surgery with uterine preservation may be accomplished abdominally, most commonly laparoscopically with or without robotic assistance.

Sacrohysteropexy (SHP) involves the attachment of permanent synthetic mesh posteriorly to the posterior vagina and cervix with or without the additional placement of mesh to the anterior vagina and cervix. When the anterior mesh is placed, the arms are typically routed through the broad ligament bilaterally and joined with the posterior mesh for attachment to the anterior longitudinal ligament, overlying the sacrum.

Proponents of this technique endorse the use of mesh to augment already failing native tissues and propose similarities to the durability of sacrocolpopexy. While no randomized controlled trials have compared hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy or supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy to sacrohysteropexy, a meta-analysis suggests that sacrohysteropexy may have a decreased risk of mesh exposure but a higher reoperation rate with lower anatomic success.⁹ Randomized trials that compared abdominal sacrohysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy and suspension indicate that apical support may be improved with sacrohysteropexy,³⁰ but reoperations, postoperative pain and disability, and urinary dysfunction was higher with SHP.^31,32

What further research is needed?

With the increasing patient and clinician interest in uterine preservation, more research is needed to improve patient counseling and surgical planning. Much of the current research compares hysteropexy outcomes with those of traditional prolapse repairs with hysterectomy, with only a few randomized trials. We are lacking robust, prospective comparison studies between hysteropexy methods, especially vaginal native tissue techniques, long-term follow-up on the prevalence of uterine or cervical pathology after hysteropexy, and pregnancy or postpartum outcomes following uterine preservation surgery.

Currently, work is underway to validate and test the effectiveness of a questionnaire to evaluate the uterus’s importance to the patient seeking prolapse surgery in order to optimize counseling. The VUE trial, which randomizes women to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension versus various prolapse surgeries with uterine preservation, is continuing its 6-year follow-up.²⁰ In the Netherlands, an ongoing randomized, controlled trial (the SAM trial) is comparing the Manchester procedure with sacrospinous hysteropexy and will follow patients up to 24 months.³³ Fortunately, both of these trials are rigorously assessing both objective and patient-centered outcomes.

CASE Counseling helps the patient weigh surgical options

After thorough review of her surgical options, the patient elects for a uterine-preserving prolapse repair. She would like to have the most minimally invasive procedure and does not want any permanent mesh used. You suggest, and she agrees to, a sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy, as it is the current technique with the most robust data. ●

ILLUSTRATION: COPYRIGHT KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Patient desires prolapse repair

A 65-year-old postmenopausal patient (G3P3) presents to your office with symptoms of a vaginal bulge for more than 1 year. She has no urinary incontinence symptoms and no bowel dysfunction symptoms. On examination, you diagnose stage 2 uterovaginal prolapse with both anterior and apical defects. The patient declines expectant and pessary management and desires surgery, but she states that she feels her uterus “is important for me to keep, as my babies grew in there and it is part of me.” She denies any family or personal history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer and has no history of abnormal cervical cancer screening or postmenopausal bleeding. What are the options for this patient?

Who is the appropriate hysteropexy patient, and how do we counsel her?

Uterine prolapse is the third leading cause of benign hysterectomy, with approximately 70,000 procedures performed each year in the United States. It has long been acknowledged that the uterus is a passive bystander to the prolapse process,¹ but modern practice often involves a hysterectomy as part of addressing apical prolapse. However, more and more uterine-preserving surgeries are being performed, with one study showing an increase from 1.8% to 5% from 2002 and 2012.²

When presented with the option to keep or remove their uterus during the time of prolapse surgery, 36% of patients indicated that they would prefer to keep their uterus with similar outcomes while 21% would still prefer uterine preservation even if outcomes were inferior compared with hysterectomy.³ Another study showed that 60% of patients would decline concurrent hysterectomy if there were equal surgical outcomes,⁴ and popular platforms, such as Health magazine (www.health.com) and AARP magazine (www.aarp.org), have listed benign hysterectomy as a “top surgery to avoid.”

Patients desire uterine preservation for many reasons, including concerns about sexual function and pleasure, the uterus being important to their sense of identity or womanhood, and concerns around menopausal symptoms. Early patient counseling and discussion of surgical goals can help clinicians fully understand a patient’s thoughts toward uterine preservation. Women who identified their uterus as important to their sense of self had a 28.2-times chance of preferring uterine preservation.³ Frequently, concerns about menopausal symptoms are more directly related to hormones and ovary removal, not uterus removal, but clinicians should be careful to also counsel patients on the increased risk of menopause in the 5 years after hysterectomy, even with ovarian preservation.⁵

There are some patients for whom experts do not recommend uterine preservation.⁶ Patients with an increased risk of cervical or endometrial pathology should be counseled on the benefits of hysterectomy. Additionally, patients who have abnormal uterine bleeding from benign pathology should consider hysterectomy to treat these issues and avoid future workups (TABLE). For postmenopausal patients with recent postmenopausal bleeding, we encourage hysterectomy. A study of patients undergoing hysterectomy at the time of prolapse repair found a rate of 13% unanticipated endometrial pathology with postmenopausal bleeding and negative preoperative workup.⁷

At this time, a majority of clinicians consider the desire for future fertility to be a relative contraindication to surgical prolapse repair and advise conservative management with pessary until childbearing is complete. This is reasonable, given the paucity of safety data in subsequent pregnancies as well as the lack of prolapse outcomes after those pregnancies.^8,9 Lastly, cervical elongation is considered a relative contraindication, as it represents a risk for surgical failure.^10,11 This may be counteracted with trachelectomy at the time of hysteropexy or surgeries such as the Manchester repair, which involve a trachelectomy routinely,¹² but currently there is no strong evidence for this as routine practice.

Continue to: Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes...

Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes

Le Fort colpocleisis

First described in 1840 by Neugebauer of Poland and later by Le Fort in Paris in 1877, the Le Fort colpocleisis repair technique remains the most reliable prolapse surgery to date.¹⁴ The uterus is left in place while the vagina is narrowed and shortened. It typically also is performed with a levator plication to reduce the genital hiatus.

This procedure is quick and effective, with a 90% to 95% success rate. If necessary, it can be performed under local or regional anesthesia, making it a good option for medically frail patients. It is not an option for everyone, however, as penetrative intercourse is no longer an option after surgery. Studies suggest an approximately 13% dissatisfaction rate after the procedure, with most of that coming from postoperative urinary symptoms, such as urgency or stress incontinence,¹⁵ and some studies show a dissatisfaction rate as low as 0% in a well-counseled patient population.^16,17

Vaginal native tissue hysteropexy

Many patients who elect for uterine preservation at the time of prolapse surgery are “minimalists,” meaning that a vaginal native tissue procedure appeals to them due to the lack of abdominal incisions, decreased operating room time, and lack of permanent graft materials.

Of all the hysteropexy procedures, sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) has the most robust data available. The approach to SSHP can be tailored to the patient’s anatomy and it is performed in a manner similar to posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation. The traditional posterior approach can be used with predominantly posterior prolapse, while an apical approach through a semilunar paracervical incision can be used for predominantly apical prolapse. Expert surgeons agree that one key to success is anchoring the suspension sutures through the cervical stroma, not just the vaginal epithelium.

Researchers in the Netherlands published the 5-year outcomes of a randomized trial that compared SSHP with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.¹⁸ Their data showed no difference between groups in composite failure, reoperation rates, quality of life measures, and postoperative sexual function. Adverse events were very similar to those reported for posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation, including 15% transient buttock pain. Of note, the same authors explored risk factors for recurrence after SSHP and found that higher body mass index, smoking, and a large point Ba measurement were risk factors for prolapse recurrence.¹⁹

A randomized, controlled trial in the United Kingdom (the VUE trial) compared vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension to uterine preservation with a variety of apical suspension techniques, mostly SSHP, and demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes.²⁰ Overall, SSHP is an excellent option for many patients interested in uterine preservation.

Uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USHP), when performed vaginally, is very similar to uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of vaginal hysterectomy, with entry into the peritoneal cavity through a posterior colpotomy. The uterosacral ligaments are grasped and delayed absorbable suture placed through the ligaments and anchored into the posterior cervical stroma. Given the maintenance of the normal axis of the vagina, USHP is a good technique for patients with isolated apical defects. Unfortunately, the least amount of quality data is available for USHP at this time. Currently, evidence suggests that complications are rare and that the procedure may offer acceptable anatomic and symptomatic outcomes.²¹ Some surgeons approach the uterosacral suspension laparoscopically, which also has mixed results in the literature, with failure rates between 8% and 27% and few robust studies.^22–24

The Manchester-Fothergill operation, currently not common in the United States but popular in Europe, primarily is considered a treatment for cervical elongation when the uterosacral ligaments are intact. In this procedure, trachelectomy is performed and the uterosacral ligaments are plicated to the uterine body. Sturmdorf sutures are frequently placed to close off the endometrial canal, which can lead to hematometra and other complications of cervical stenosis. Previous unmatched studies have shown similar outcomes with the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy.^25,26

The largest study currently available is a registry study from Denmark, with matched cohort populations, that compared the Manchester procedure, SSHP, and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁷ This study indicated less morbidity related to the Manchester procedure, decreased anterior recurrence compared with SSHP, and a 7% reoperation rate.²⁷ The same authors also established better cost-effectiveness with the Manchester procedure as opposed to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁸

Continue to: Vaginal mesh hysteropexy...

Hysteropexy using vaginal mesh is limited in the United States given the removal of vaginal mesh kits from the market by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. However, a Pelvic Floor Disorders Network randomized trial compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy using the Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁹ At 5 years, mesh hysteropexy had fewer failures than hysterectomy (37% vs 54%) and there was no difference in retreatment (9% vs 13%). The authors noted an 8% mesh exposure rate in the mesh hysteropexy group but 12% granulation tissue and 21% suture exposure rate in the hysterectomy group.²⁹

While vaginal mesh hysteropexy was effective in the treatment of apical prolapse, the elevated mesh exposure rate and postoperative complications ultimately led to its removal from the market.

Sacrohysteropexy

Lastly, prolapse surgery with uterine preservation may be accomplished abdominally, most commonly laparoscopically with or without robotic assistance.

Sacrohysteropexy (SHP) involves the attachment of permanent synthetic mesh posteriorly to the posterior vagina and cervix with or without the additional placement of mesh to the anterior vagina and cervix. When the anterior mesh is placed, the arms are typically routed through the broad ligament bilaterally and joined with the posterior mesh for attachment to the anterior longitudinal ligament, overlying the sacrum.

Proponents of this technique endorse the use of mesh to augment already failing native tissues and propose similarities to the durability of sacrocolpopexy. While no randomized controlled trials have compared hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy or supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy to sacrohysteropexy, a meta-analysis suggests that sacrohysteropexy may have a decreased risk of mesh exposure but a higher reoperation rate with lower anatomic success.⁹ Randomized trials that compared abdominal sacrohysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy and suspension indicate that apical support may be improved with sacrohysteropexy,³⁰ but reoperations, postoperative pain and disability, and urinary dysfunction was higher with SHP.^31,32

What further research is needed?

With the increasing patient and clinician interest in uterine preservation, more research is needed to improve patient counseling and surgical planning. Much of the current research compares hysteropexy outcomes with those of traditional prolapse repairs with hysterectomy, with only a few randomized trials. We are lacking robust, prospective comparison studies between hysteropexy methods, especially vaginal native tissue techniques, long-term follow-up on the prevalence of uterine or cervical pathology after hysteropexy, and pregnancy or postpartum outcomes following uterine preservation surgery.

Currently, work is underway to validate and test the effectiveness of a questionnaire to evaluate the uterus’s importance to the patient seeking prolapse surgery in order to optimize counseling. The VUE trial, which randomizes women to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension versus various prolapse surgeries with uterine preservation, is continuing its 6-year follow-up.²⁰ In the Netherlands, an ongoing randomized, controlled trial (the SAM trial) is comparing the Manchester procedure with sacrospinous hysteropexy and will follow patients up to 24 months.³³ Fortunately, both of these trials are rigorously assessing both objective and patient-centered outcomes.

CASE Counseling helps the patient weigh surgical options

After thorough review of her surgical options, the patient elects for a uterine-preserving prolapse repair. She would like to have the most minimally invasive procedure and does not want any permanent mesh used. You suggest, and she agrees to, a sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy, as it is the current technique with the most robust data. ●

ILLUSTRATION: COPYRIGHT KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

CASE Patient desires prolapse repair

A 65-year-old postmenopausal patient (G3P3) presents to your office with symptoms of a vaginal bulge for more than 1 year. She has no urinary incontinence symptoms and no bowel dysfunction symptoms. On examination, you diagnose stage 2 uterovaginal prolapse with both anterior and apical defects. The patient declines expectant and pessary management and desires surgery, but she states that she feels her uterus “is important for me to keep, as my babies grew in there and it is part of me.” She denies any family or personal history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer and has no history of abnormal cervical cancer screening or postmenopausal bleeding. What are the options for this patient?

Who is the appropriate hysteropexy patient, and how do we counsel her?

Uterine prolapse is the third leading cause of benign hysterectomy, with approximately 70,000 procedures performed each year in the United States. It has long been acknowledged that the uterus is a passive bystander to the prolapse process,¹ but modern practice often involves a hysterectomy as part of addressing apical prolapse. However, more and more uterine-preserving surgeries are being performed, with one study showing an increase from 1.8% to 5% from 2002 and 2012.²

When presented with the option to keep or remove their uterus during the time of prolapse surgery, 36% of patients indicated that they would prefer to keep their uterus with similar outcomes while 21% would still prefer uterine preservation even if outcomes were inferior compared with hysterectomy.³ Another study showed that 60% of patients would decline concurrent hysterectomy if there were equal surgical outcomes,⁴ and popular platforms, such as Health magazine (www.health.com) and AARP magazine (www.aarp.org), have listed benign hysterectomy as a “top surgery to avoid.”

Patients desire uterine preservation for many reasons, including concerns about sexual function and pleasure, the uterus being important to their sense of identity or womanhood, and concerns around menopausal symptoms. Early patient counseling and discussion of surgical goals can help clinicians fully understand a patient’s thoughts toward uterine preservation. Women who identified their uterus as important to their sense of self had a 28.2-times chance of preferring uterine preservation.³ Frequently, concerns about menopausal symptoms are more directly related to hormones and ovary removal, not uterus removal, but clinicians should be careful to also counsel patients on the increased risk of menopause in the 5 years after hysterectomy, even with ovarian preservation.⁵

There are some patients for whom experts do not recommend uterine preservation.⁶ Patients with an increased risk of cervical or endometrial pathology should be counseled on the benefits of hysterectomy. Additionally, patients who have abnormal uterine bleeding from benign pathology should consider hysterectomy to treat these issues and avoid future workups (TABLE). For postmenopausal patients with recent postmenopausal bleeding, we encourage hysterectomy. A study of patients undergoing hysterectomy at the time of prolapse repair found a rate of 13% unanticipated endometrial pathology with postmenopausal bleeding and negative preoperative workup.⁷

At this time, a majority of clinicians consider the desire for future fertility to be a relative contraindication to surgical prolapse repair and advise conservative management with pessary until childbearing is complete. This is reasonable, given the paucity of safety data in subsequent pregnancies as well as the lack of prolapse outcomes after those pregnancies.^8,9 Lastly, cervical elongation is considered a relative contraindication, as it represents a risk for surgical failure.^10,11 This may be counteracted with trachelectomy at the time of hysteropexy or surgeries such as the Manchester repair, which involve a trachelectomy routinely,¹² but currently there is no strong evidence for this as routine practice.

Continue to: Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes...

Uterine preservation surgical techniques and outcomes

Le Fort colpocleisis

First described in 1840 by Neugebauer of Poland and later by Le Fort in Paris in 1877, the Le Fort colpocleisis repair technique remains the most reliable prolapse surgery to date.¹⁴ The uterus is left in place while the vagina is narrowed and shortened. It typically also is performed with a levator plication to reduce the genital hiatus.

This procedure is quick and effective, with a 90% to 95% success rate. If necessary, it can be performed under local or regional anesthesia, making it a good option for medically frail patients. It is not an option for everyone, however, as penetrative intercourse is no longer an option after surgery. Studies suggest an approximately 13% dissatisfaction rate after the procedure, with most of that coming from postoperative urinary symptoms, such as urgency or stress incontinence,¹⁵ and some studies show a dissatisfaction rate as low as 0% in a well-counseled patient population.^16,17

Vaginal native tissue hysteropexy

Many patients who elect for uterine preservation at the time of prolapse surgery are “minimalists,” meaning that a vaginal native tissue procedure appeals to them due to the lack of abdominal incisions, decreased operating room time, and lack of permanent graft materials.

Of all the hysteropexy procedures, sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) has the most robust data available. The approach to SSHP can be tailored to the patient’s anatomy and it is performed in a manner similar to posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation. The traditional posterior approach can be used with predominantly posterior prolapse, while an apical approach through a semilunar paracervical incision can be used for predominantly apical prolapse. Expert surgeons agree that one key to success is anchoring the suspension sutures through the cervical stroma, not just the vaginal epithelium.

Researchers in the Netherlands published the 5-year outcomes of a randomized trial that compared SSHP with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.¹⁸ Their data showed no difference between groups in composite failure, reoperation rates, quality of life measures, and postoperative sexual function. Adverse events were very similar to those reported for posthysterectomy sacrospinous ligament fixation, including 15% transient buttock pain. Of note, the same authors explored risk factors for recurrence after SSHP and found that higher body mass index, smoking, and a large point Ba measurement were risk factors for prolapse recurrence.¹⁹

A randomized, controlled trial in the United Kingdom (the VUE trial) compared vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension to uterine preservation with a variety of apical suspension techniques, mostly SSHP, and demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes.²⁰ Overall, SSHP is an excellent option for many patients interested in uterine preservation.

Uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USHP), when performed vaginally, is very similar to uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of vaginal hysterectomy, with entry into the peritoneal cavity through a posterior colpotomy. The uterosacral ligaments are grasped and delayed absorbable suture placed through the ligaments and anchored into the posterior cervical stroma. Given the maintenance of the normal axis of the vagina, USHP is a good technique for patients with isolated apical defects. Unfortunately, the least amount of quality data is available for USHP at this time. Currently, evidence suggests that complications are rare and that the procedure may offer acceptable anatomic and symptomatic outcomes.²¹ Some surgeons approach the uterosacral suspension laparoscopically, which also has mixed results in the literature, with failure rates between 8% and 27% and few robust studies.^22–24

The Manchester-Fothergill operation, currently not common in the United States but popular in Europe, primarily is considered a treatment for cervical elongation when the uterosacral ligaments are intact. In this procedure, trachelectomy is performed and the uterosacral ligaments are plicated to the uterine body. Sturmdorf sutures are frequently placed to close off the endometrial canal, which can lead to hematometra and other complications of cervical stenosis. Previous unmatched studies have shown similar outcomes with the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy.^25,26

The largest study currently available is a registry study from Denmark, with matched cohort populations, that compared the Manchester procedure, SSHP, and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁷ This study indicated less morbidity related to the Manchester procedure, decreased anterior recurrence compared with SSHP, and a 7% reoperation rate.²⁷ The same authors also established better cost-effectiveness with the Manchester procedure as opposed to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁸

Continue to: Vaginal mesh hysteropexy...

Hysteropexy using vaginal mesh is limited in the United States given the removal of vaginal mesh kits from the market by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. However, a Pelvic Floor Disorders Network randomized trial compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy using the Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.²⁹ At 5 years, mesh hysteropexy had fewer failures than hysterectomy (37% vs 54%) and there was no difference in retreatment (9% vs 13%). The authors noted an 8% mesh exposure rate in the mesh hysteropexy group but 12% granulation tissue and 21% suture exposure rate in the hysterectomy group.²⁹

While vaginal mesh hysteropexy was effective in the treatment of apical prolapse, the elevated mesh exposure rate and postoperative complications ultimately led to its removal from the market.

Sacrohysteropexy

Lastly, prolapse surgery with uterine preservation may be accomplished abdominally, most commonly laparoscopically with or without robotic assistance.

Sacrohysteropexy (SHP) involves the attachment of permanent synthetic mesh posteriorly to the posterior vagina and cervix with or without the additional placement of mesh to the anterior vagina and cervix. When the anterior mesh is placed, the arms are typically routed through the broad ligament bilaterally and joined with the posterior mesh for attachment to the anterior longitudinal ligament, overlying the sacrum.

Proponents of this technique endorse the use of mesh to augment already failing native tissues and propose similarities to the durability of sacrocolpopexy. While no randomized controlled trials have compared hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy or supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy to sacrohysteropexy, a meta-analysis suggests that sacrohysteropexy may have a decreased risk of mesh exposure but a higher reoperation rate with lower anatomic success.⁹ Randomized trials that compared abdominal sacrohysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy and suspension indicate that apical support may be improved with sacrohysteropexy,³⁰ but reoperations, postoperative pain and disability, and urinary dysfunction was higher with SHP.^31,32

What further research is needed?

With the increasing patient and clinician interest in uterine preservation, more research is needed to improve patient counseling and surgical planning. Much of the current research compares hysteropexy outcomes with those of traditional prolapse repairs with hysterectomy, with only a few randomized trials. We are lacking robust, prospective comparison studies between hysteropexy methods, especially vaginal native tissue techniques, long-term follow-up on the prevalence of uterine or cervical pathology after hysteropexy, and pregnancy or postpartum outcomes following uterine preservation surgery.

Currently, work is underway to validate and test the effectiveness of a questionnaire to evaluate the uterus’s importance to the patient seeking prolapse surgery in order to optimize counseling. The VUE trial, which randomizes women to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension versus various prolapse surgeries with uterine preservation, is continuing its 6-year follow-up.²⁰ In the Netherlands, an ongoing randomized, controlled trial (the SAM trial) is comparing the Manchester procedure with sacrospinous hysteropexy and will follow patients up to 24 months.³³ Fortunately, both of these trials are rigorously assessing both objective and patient-centered outcomes.

CASE Counseling helps the patient weigh surgical options

After thorough review of her surgical options, the patient elects for a uterine-preserving prolapse repair. She would like to have the most minimally invasive procedure and does not want any permanent mesh used. You suggest, and she agrees to, a sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy, as it is the current technique with the most robust data. ●

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision, deeming that abortion is not protected by statutes that provide the right to privacy, liberty, or autonomy. With this historic ruling, other rights founded on the same principles, including the freedom to use contraception, may be called into question in the future. Clinics that provide abortion care typically play a vital role in providing contraception services. Due to abortion restriction across the country, many of these clinics are predicted to close and many have already closed. Within one month of the Dobbs decision, 43 clinics in 11 states had shut their doors to patients, reducing access to basic contraception services.¹ It is more important now than ever that clinicians address barriers and lead the effort to improve and ensure that patients have access to contraceptive services.

In this Update, we review recent evidence that may help aid patients in obtaining contraception more easily and for longer periods of time. We review strategies demonstrated to improve contraceptive access, including how to increase prescribing rates of 1-year contraceptive supplies and pharmacist-prescribed contraception. We also review new data on extended use of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device (LNG 52 mg IUD).

One-year prescribing of  hormonal contraception  decreases an access barrier

Uhm S, Chen MJ, Cutler ED, et al. Twelve-month prescribing of contraceptive pill, patch, and ring before and after a standardized electronic medical record order change. Contraception. 2021;103:60-63.

Providing a 1-year supply of self-administered contraception can lead to higher likelihood of continued use and is associated with reduced cost, unintended pregnancy, and abortion rates.^2-4 Although some patients may not use a full year’s supply of pills, rings, or patches under such programs, the lower rates of unintended pregnancy result in significant cost savings as compared with the unused contraceptives.^2,3 Accordingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises dispensing a 1-year supply of self-administered hormonal contraception.⁵ Insurance coverage and providers’ prescribing practices can be barriers to patients obtaining a year’s supply of hormonal contraception. Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia legally require insurers to cover a 12-month supply of prescription contraceptives (FIGURE 1). Despite these laws and the CDC recommendation, studies show that most people continue to receive only a 1- to 3-month supply.^6-8 One strategy to increase the number of 1-year supplies of self-administered contraception is institutional changes to default prescription orders.

Study design

In California, legislation enacted in January 2017 required commercial and medical assistance health plans to cover up to  12 months of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved self-administered hormonal contraceptives dispensed at 1 time as prescribed or requested. To better serve patients, a multidisciplinary team from the University of California Davis Health worked with the institution’s pharmacy to institute an electronic medical record (EMR) default order change from dispensing 1-month with refills to dispensing 12-month quantities for all combined and progestin-only pills, patches, and rings on formulary.

After this EMR order change in December 2019, Uhm and colleagues conducted a retrospective pre-post study using outpatient prescription data that included nearly  5,000 contraceptive pill, patch, and ring prescriptions over an 8-month period. They compared the frequency of 12-month prescriptions for each of these methods 4 months before and 4 months after the default order change. They compared the proportion of 12-month prescriptions by prescriber department affiliation and by clinic location. Department affiliation was categorized as obstetrics-gynecology or non–obstetrics-gynecology. Clinic location was categorized as medical center campus or community clinics.

Increase in 12-month prescriptions

The authors found an overall increase in 12-month prescriptions, from 11% to 27%, after the EMR order change. Prescribers at the medical center campus clinics more frequently ordered a 12-month supply compared with prescribers at community clinics both before (33% vs 4%, respectively) and after (53% vs 19%, respectively) the EMR change. The only group of providers without a significant increase in 12-month prescriptions was among obstetrics-gynecology providers at community clinics (4% before  vs 6% after).

The system EMR change modified only the standard facility order settings and did not affect individual favorite orders, which may help explain the differences in prescribing practices. While this study found an increase in 12-month prescriptions, there were no data on the actual number of supplies a patient received or  on reimbursement.

 Continue to: Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation...

Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation

Rodriguez MI, Skye M, Edelman AB, et al. Association of pharmacist prescription and 12-month contraceptive continuation rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225:647.e1-647.e9.

Patients often face difficulty obtaining both new and timely refills of self-administered contraception.^10,11 To expand contraception access, Oregon became the first state (in 2016) to enact legislation to authorize direct pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptives.¹² Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have protocols for pharmacist prescribing privileges (FIGURE 2), and proposed legislation is pending in another  14 states.^10,12 These protocols vary, but basic processes include screening, documentation, monitoring, and referrals when necessary. Typically, protocols require a pharmacist to review a patient’s medical history, pregnancy status, medication use, and blood pressure, followed by contraceptive counseling.¹⁰ Pharmacies are generally located in the community they serve, have extended hours, and usually do not require an appointment.^8,13,14

Pharmacist prescribing increases the number of new contraceptive users, and pharmacists are more likely to prescribe a 6-month or longer supply of contraceptives compared with clinicians.^8,13,15 Also, pharmacist prescribing is safe, with adherence rates to the CDC’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use similar to those of prescriptions provided by a clinician.¹³

Authors of a recent multi-state study further assessed the impact of pharmacist prescribing by evaluating 12-month continuation and perfect use rates.

Study design

Rodriguez and colleagues evaluated the results of a 1-year prospective cohort study conducted in 2019 that included 388 participants who sought contraception in California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Oregon. All these states had laws permitting pharmacist prescribing and 12-month supply of hormonal contraception. Participants received prescriptions directly from a pharmacist at 1 of 139 pharmacies (n = 149) or filled a prescription provided by a clinician (n = 239). The primary outcomes were continuation of an effective method and perfect use of contraception across 12 months.

Participant demographics were similar between the 2 groups except for education and insurance status. Participants who received a prescription from a clinician reported higher levels of education. A greater proportion of uninsured participants received a prescription from a pharmacist (11%) compared with from a clinician (3%).

Contraceptive continuation rates

Participants were surveyed 3 times during the 12-month study about their current contraceptive method, if they had switched methods, or if they had any missed days  of contraception. 

Overall, 340 participants (88%) completed a full 12 months of follow-up. Continuation rates were similar between the 2 groups: 89% in the clinician-prescribed and 90% in the pharmacist-prescribed group (P=.86). Participants in the 2 groups also reported similar rates of perfect use (no missed days: 54% and 47%, respectively [P=.69]).  Additionally, the authors reported that  29 participants changed from a tier 2 (pill, patch, ring, injection) to a tier 1 (intrauterine device or implant) method during follow-up, with no difference in switch rates for participants who received care from a clinician (10%) or a pharmacist (7%).

Continue to: LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use... 

LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use 

Creinin MD, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al. Levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system efficacy and safety through 8 years of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;S00029378(22)00366-0.

Given the potential difficulty accessing contraceptive and abortion services due to state restrictions, patients may be more motivated to maintain long-acting reversible contraceptives for maximum periods of time. The LNG 52 mg IUD was first marketed as a 5-year product, but multiple studies suggested that it had potential longer duration of efficacy and safety.^18,19 The most recent clinical trial report shows that the LNG 52 mg IUD has at least 8 years of efficacy  and safety.

Evidence supports 8 years’ use

The ACCESS IUS (A Comprehensive Contraceptive Efficacy and Safety Study of an IUS) phase 3 trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a LNG 52 mg IUD (Liletta) for up to 10 years of use. The recent publication by Creinin and colleagues extends the available data from this study from 6 to 8 years.

Five-hundred and sixty-nine participants started year 7; 478 completed year 7 and 343 completed year 8 by the time the study was discontinued. Two pregnancies occurred in year 7 and no pregnancies occurred in year 8. One of the pregnancies in year 7 was determined by ultrasound examination to have implantation on day 4 after LNG IUD removal. According to the FDA, any pregnancy that occurs within 7 days of discontinuation is included as on-treatment, whereas the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has a 2-day cutoff. Over 8 years,  11 pregnancies occurred. The cumulative life-table pregnancy rate in the primary efficacy population through year 8 was 1.32% (95% confidence interval [CI],  0.69–2.51) under FDA rules and 1.09% (95% CI,  0.56–2.13) according to EMA guidance.

Absence of bleeding/spotting rates and adverse events

Rates of absence of bleeding/spotting remained relatively stable in years 7 and 8 at around 40%, similar to the rates during years 3 to 8 (FIGURE 4). Overall, only 2.6% of participants discontinued LNG IUD use because of bleeding problems, with a total of 4 participants discontinuing for this reason in years 7 and 8. Expulsion rates remained low at a rate of approximately 0.5% in years 7 and 8. Vulvovaginal infections were the most common adverse effect during year 7–8 of use. These findings are consistent with those found at  6 years.²⁰ ●

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision, deeming that abortion is not protected by statutes that provide the right to privacy, liberty, or autonomy. With this historic ruling, other rights founded on the same principles, including the freedom to use contraception, may be called into question in the future. Clinics that provide abortion care typically play a vital role in providing contraception services. Due to abortion restriction across the country, many of these clinics are predicted to close and many have already closed. Within one month of the Dobbs decision, 43 clinics in 11 states had shut their doors to patients, reducing access to basic contraception services.¹ It is more important now than ever that clinicians address barriers and lead the effort to improve and ensure that patients have access to contraceptive services.

In this Update, we review recent evidence that may help aid patients in obtaining contraception more easily and for longer periods of time. We review strategies demonstrated to improve contraceptive access, including how to increase prescribing rates of 1-year contraceptive supplies and pharmacist-prescribed contraception. We also review new data on extended use of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device (LNG 52 mg IUD).

One-year prescribing of  hormonal contraception  decreases an access barrier

Uhm S, Chen MJ, Cutler ED, et al. Twelve-month prescribing of contraceptive pill, patch, and ring before and after a standardized electronic medical record order change. Contraception. 2021;103:60-63.

Providing a 1-year supply of self-administered contraception can lead to higher likelihood of continued use and is associated with reduced cost, unintended pregnancy, and abortion rates.^2-4 Although some patients may not use a full year’s supply of pills, rings, or patches under such programs, the lower rates of unintended pregnancy result in significant cost savings as compared with the unused contraceptives.^2,3 Accordingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises dispensing a 1-year supply of self-administered hormonal contraception.⁵ Insurance coverage and providers’ prescribing practices can be barriers to patients obtaining a year’s supply of hormonal contraception. Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia legally require insurers to cover a 12-month supply of prescription contraceptives (FIGURE 1). Despite these laws and the CDC recommendation, studies show that most people continue to receive only a 1- to 3-month supply.^6-8 One strategy to increase the number of 1-year supplies of self-administered contraception is institutional changes to default prescription orders.

Study design

In California, legislation enacted in January 2017 required commercial and medical assistance health plans to cover up to  12 months of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved self-administered hormonal contraceptives dispensed at 1 time as prescribed or requested. To better serve patients, a multidisciplinary team from the University of California Davis Health worked with the institution’s pharmacy to institute an electronic medical record (EMR) default order change from dispensing 1-month with refills to dispensing 12-month quantities for all combined and progestin-only pills, patches, and rings on formulary.

After this EMR order change in December 2019, Uhm and colleagues conducted a retrospective pre-post study using outpatient prescription data that included nearly  5,000 contraceptive pill, patch, and ring prescriptions over an 8-month period. They compared the frequency of 12-month prescriptions for each of these methods 4 months before and 4 months after the default order change. They compared the proportion of 12-month prescriptions by prescriber department affiliation and by clinic location. Department affiliation was categorized as obstetrics-gynecology or non–obstetrics-gynecology. Clinic location was categorized as medical center campus or community clinics.

Increase in 12-month prescriptions

The authors found an overall increase in 12-month prescriptions, from 11% to 27%, after the EMR order change. Prescribers at the medical center campus clinics more frequently ordered a 12-month supply compared with prescribers at community clinics both before (33% vs 4%, respectively) and after (53% vs 19%, respectively) the EMR change. The only group of providers without a significant increase in 12-month prescriptions was among obstetrics-gynecology providers at community clinics (4% before  vs 6% after).

The system EMR change modified only the standard facility order settings and did not affect individual favorite orders, which may help explain the differences in prescribing practices. While this study found an increase in 12-month prescriptions, there were no data on the actual number of supplies a patient received or  on reimbursement.

 Continue to: Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation...

Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation

Rodriguez MI, Skye M, Edelman AB, et al. Association of pharmacist prescription and 12-month contraceptive continuation rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225:647.e1-647.e9.

Patients often face difficulty obtaining both new and timely refills of self-administered contraception.^10,11 To expand contraception access, Oregon became the first state (in 2016) to enact legislation to authorize direct pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptives.¹² Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have protocols for pharmacist prescribing privileges (FIGURE 2), and proposed legislation is pending in another  14 states.^10,12 These protocols vary, but basic processes include screening, documentation, monitoring, and referrals when necessary. Typically, protocols require a pharmacist to review a patient’s medical history, pregnancy status, medication use, and blood pressure, followed by contraceptive counseling.¹⁰ Pharmacies are generally located in the community they serve, have extended hours, and usually do not require an appointment.^8,13,14

Pharmacist prescribing increases the number of new contraceptive users, and pharmacists are more likely to prescribe a 6-month or longer supply of contraceptives compared with clinicians.^8,13,15 Also, pharmacist prescribing is safe, with adherence rates to the CDC’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use similar to those of prescriptions provided by a clinician.¹³

Authors of a recent multi-state study further assessed the impact of pharmacist prescribing by evaluating 12-month continuation and perfect use rates.

Study design

Rodriguez and colleagues evaluated the results of a 1-year prospective cohort study conducted in 2019 that included 388 participants who sought contraception in California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Oregon. All these states had laws permitting pharmacist prescribing and 12-month supply of hormonal contraception. Participants received prescriptions directly from a pharmacist at 1 of 139 pharmacies (n = 149) or filled a prescription provided by a clinician (n = 239). The primary outcomes were continuation of an effective method and perfect use of contraception across 12 months.

Participant demographics were similar between the 2 groups except for education and insurance status. Participants who received a prescription from a clinician reported higher levels of education. A greater proportion of uninsured participants received a prescription from a pharmacist (11%) compared with from a clinician (3%).

Contraceptive continuation rates

Participants were surveyed 3 times during the 12-month study about their current contraceptive method, if they had switched methods, or if they had any missed days  of contraception. 

Overall, 340 participants (88%) completed a full 12 months of follow-up. Continuation rates were similar between the 2 groups: 89% in the clinician-prescribed and 90% in the pharmacist-prescribed group (P=.86). Participants in the 2 groups also reported similar rates of perfect use (no missed days: 54% and 47%, respectively [P=.69]).  Additionally, the authors reported that  29 participants changed from a tier 2 (pill, patch, ring, injection) to a tier 1 (intrauterine device or implant) method during follow-up, with no difference in switch rates for participants who received care from a clinician (10%) or a pharmacist (7%).

Continue to: LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use... 

LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use 

Creinin MD, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al. Levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system efficacy and safety through 8 years of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;S00029378(22)00366-0.

Given the potential difficulty accessing contraceptive and abortion services due to state restrictions, patients may be more motivated to maintain long-acting reversible contraceptives for maximum periods of time. The LNG 52 mg IUD was first marketed as a 5-year product, but multiple studies suggested that it had potential longer duration of efficacy and safety.^18,19 The most recent clinical trial report shows that the LNG 52 mg IUD has at least 8 years of efficacy  and safety.

Evidence supports 8 years’ use

The ACCESS IUS (A Comprehensive Contraceptive Efficacy and Safety Study of an IUS) phase 3 trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a LNG 52 mg IUD (Liletta) for up to 10 years of use. The recent publication by Creinin and colleagues extends the available data from this study from 6 to 8 years.

Five-hundred and sixty-nine participants started year 7; 478 completed year 7 and 343 completed year 8 by the time the study was discontinued. Two pregnancies occurred in year 7 and no pregnancies occurred in year 8. One of the pregnancies in year 7 was determined by ultrasound examination to have implantation on day 4 after LNG IUD removal. According to the FDA, any pregnancy that occurs within 7 days of discontinuation is included as on-treatment, whereas the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has a 2-day cutoff. Over 8 years,  11 pregnancies occurred. The cumulative life-table pregnancy rate in the primary efficacy population through year 8 was 1.32% (95% confidence interval [CI],  0.69–2.51) under FDA rules and 1.09% (95% CI,  0.56–2.13) according to EMA guidance.

Absence of bleeding/spotting rates and adverse events

Rates of absence of bleeding/spotting remained relatively stable in years 7 and 8 at around 40%, similar to the rates during years 3 to 8 (FIGURE 4). Overall, only 2.6% of participants discontinued LNG IUD use because of bleeding problems, with a total of 4 participants discontinuing for this reason in years 7 and 8. Expulsion rates remained low at a rate of approximately 0.5% in years 7 and 8. Vulvovaginal infections were the most common adverse effect during year 7–8 of use. These findings are consistent with those found at  6 years.²⁰ ●

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision, deeming that abortion is not protected by statutes that provide the right to privacy, liberty, or autonomy. With this historic ruling, other rights founded on the same principles, including the freedom to use contraception, may be called into question in the future. Clinics that provide abortion care typically play a vital role in providing contraception services. Due to abortion restriction across the country, many of these clinics are predicted to close and many have already closed. Within one month of the Dobbs decision, 43 clinics in 11 states had shut their doors to patients, reducing access to basic contraception services.¹ It is more important now than ever that clinicians address barriers and lead the effort to improve and ensure that patients have access to contraceptive services.

In this Update, we review recent evidence that may help aid patients in obtaining contraception more easily and for longer periods of time. We review strategies demonstrated to improve contraceptive access, including how to increase prescribing rates of 1-year contraceptive supplies and pharmacist-prescribed contraception. We also review new data on extended use of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device (LNG 52 mg IUD).

One-year prescribing of  hormonal contraception  decreases an access barrier

Uhm S, Chen MJ, Cutler ED, et al. Twelve-month prescribing of contraceptive pill, patch, and ring before and after a standardized electronic medical record order change. Contraception. 2021;103:60-63.

Providing a 1-year supply of self-administered contraception can lead to higher likelihood of continued use and is associated with reduced cost, unintended pregnancy, and abortion rates.^2-4 Although some patients may not use a full year’s supply of pills, rings, or patches under such programs, the lower rates of unintended pregnancy result in significant cost savings as compared with the unused contraceptives.^2,3 Accordingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises dispensing a 1-year supply of self-administered hormonal contraception.⁵ Insurance coverage and providers’ prescribing practices can be barriers to patients obtaining a year’s supply of hormonal contraception. Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia legally require insurers to cover a 12-month supply of prescription contraceptives (FIGURE 1). Despite these laws and the CDC recommendation, studies show that most people continue to receive only a 1- to 3-month supply.^6-8 One strategy to increase the number of 1-year supplies of self-administered contraception is institutional changes to default prescription orders.

Study design

In California, legislation enacted in January 2017 required commercial and medical assistance health plans to cover up to  12 months of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved self-administered hormonal contraceptives dispensed at 1 time as prescribed or requested. To better serve patients, a multidisciplinary team from the University of California Davis Health worked with the institution’s pharmacy to institute an electronic medical record (EMR) default order change from dispensing 1-month with refills to dispensing 12-month quantities for all combined and progestin-only pills, patches, and rings on formulary.

After this EMR order change in December 2019, Uhm and colleagues conducted a retrospective pre-post study using outpatient prescription data that included nearly  5,000 contraceptive pill, patch, and ring prescriptions over an 8-month period. They compared the frequency of 12-month prescriptions for each of these methods 4 months before and 4 months after the default order change. They compared the proportion of 12-month prescriptions by prescriber department affiliation and by clinic location. Department affiliation was categorized as obstetrics-gynecology or non–obstetrics-gynecology. Clinic location was categorized as medical center campus or community clinics.

Increase in 12-month prescriptions

The authors found an overall increase in 12-month prescriptions, from 11% to 27%, after the EMR order change. Prescribers at the medical center campus clinics more frequently ordered a 12-month supply compared with prescribers at community clinics both before (33% vs 4%, respectively) and after (53% vs 19%, respectively) the EMR change. The only group of providers without a significant increase in 12-month prescriptions was among obstetrics-gynecology providers at community clinics (4% before  vs 6% after).

The system EMR change modified only the standard facility order settings and did not affect individual favorite orders, which may help explain the differences in prescribing practices. While this study found an increase in 12-month prescriptions, there were no data on the actual number of supplies a patient received or  on reimbursement.

 Continue to: Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation...

Pharmacist prescription of  hormonal contraception is safe and promotes continuation

Rodriguez MI, Skye M, Edelman AB, et al. Association of pharmacist prescription and 12-month contraceptive continuation rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225:647.e1-647.e9.

Patients often face difficulty obtaining both new and timely refills of self-administered contraception.^10,11 To expand contraception access, Oregon became the first state (in 2016) to enact legislation to authorize direct pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptives.¹² Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have protocols for pharmacist prescribing privileges (FIGURE 2), and proposed legislation is pending in another  14 states.^10,12 These protocols vary, but basic processes include screening, documentation, monitoring, and referrals when necessary. Typically, protocols require a pharmacist to review a patient’s medical history, pregnancy status, medication use, and blood pressure, followed by contraceptive counseling.¹⁰ Pharmacies are generally located in the community they serve, have extended hours, and usually do not require an appointment.^8,13,14

Pharmacist prescribing increases the number of new contraceptive users, and pharmacists are more likely to prescribe a 6-month or longer supply of contraceptives compared with clinicians.^8,13,15 Also, pharmacist prescribing is safe, with adherence rates to the CDC’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use similar to those of prescriptions provided by a clinician.¹³

Authors of a recent multi-state study further assessed the impact of pharmacist prescribing by evaluating 12-month continuation and perfect use rates.

Study design

Rodriguez and colleagues evaluated the results of a 1-year prospective cohort study conducted in 2019 that included 388 participants who sought contraception in California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Oregon. All these states had laws permitting pharmacist prescribing and 12-month supply of hormonal contraception. Participants received prescriptions directly from a pharmacist at 1 of 139 pharmacies (n = 149) or filled a prescription provided by a clinician (n = 239). The primary outcomes were continuation of an effective method and perfect use of contraception across 12 months.

Participant demographics were similar between the 2 groups except for education and insurance status. Participants who received a prescription from a clinician reported higher levels of education. A greater proportion of uninsured participants received a prescription from a pharmacist (11%) compared with from a clinician (3%).

Contraceptive continuation rates

Participants were surveyed 3 times during the 12-month study about their current contraceptive method, if they had switched methods, or if they had any missed days  of contraception. 

Overall, 340 participants (88%) completed a full 12 months of follow-up. Continuation rates were similar between the 2 groups: 89% in the clinician-prescribed and 90% in the pharmacist-prescribed group (P=.86). Participants in the 2 groups also reported similar rates of perfect use (no missed days: 54% and 47%, respectively [P=.69]).  Additionally, the authors reported that  29 participants changed from a tier 2 (pill, patch, ring, injection) to a tier 1 (intrauterine device or implant) method during follow-up, with no difference in switch rates for participants who received care from a clinician (10%) or a pharmacist (7%).

Continue to: LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use... 

LNG 52 mg IUD demonstrates  efficacy and safety through 8 years of use 

Creinin MD, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al. Levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system efficacy and safety through 8 years of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;S00029378(22)00366-0.

Given the potential difficulty accessing contraceptive and abortion services due to state restrictions, patients may be more motivated to maintain long-acting reversible contraceptives for maximum periods of time. The LNG 52 mg IUD was first marketed as a 5-year product, but multiple studies suggested that it had potential longer duration of efficacy and safety.^18,19 The most recent clinical trial report shows that the LNG 52 mg IUD has at least 8 years of efficacy  and safety.

Evidence supports 8 years’ use

The ACCESS IUS (A Comprehensive Contraceptive Efficacy and Safety Study of an IUS) phase 3 trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a LNG 52 mg IUD (Liletta) for up to 10 years of use. The recent publication by Creinin and colleagues extends the available data from this study from 6 to 8 years.

Five-hundred and sixty-nine participants started year 7; 478 completed year 7 and 343 completed year 8 by the time the study was discontinued. Two pregnancies occurred in year 7 and no pregnancies occurred in year 8. One of the pregnancies in year 7 was determined by ultrasound examination to have implantation on day 4 after LNG IUD removal. According to the FDA, any pregnancy that occurs within 7 days of discontinuation is included as on-treatment, whereas the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has a 2-day cutoff. Over 8 years,  11 pregnancies occurred. The cumulative life-table pregnancy rate in the primary efficacy population through year 8 was 1.32% (95% confidence interval [CI],  0.69–2.51) under FDA rules and 1.09% (95% CI,  0.56–2.13) according to EMA guidance.

Absence of bleeding/spotting rates and adverse events

Rates of absence of bleeding/spotting remained relatively stable in years 7 and 8 at around 40%, similar to the rates during years 3 to 8 (FIGURE 4). Overall, only 2.6% of participants discontinued LNG IUD use because of bleeding problems, with a total of 4 participants discontinuing for this reason in years 7 and 8. Expulsion rates remained low at a rate of approximately 0.5% in years 7 and 8. Vulvovaginal infections were the most common adverse effect during year 7–8 of use. These findings are consistent with those found at  6 years.²⁰ ●

Like many of you, I am an obstetrician-gynecologist who provides full-spectrum reproductive health care. Our jobs demand great intimacy—we are with patients as they meet their first born, learn of a miscarriage diagnosis, or decide to end their pregnancy. I have performed an uncomplicated, joyful vaginal delivery, then within an hour rushed a different patient’s gurney to the intensive care unit as she became acutely hypotensive and hypoxic, developing ARDS after a stillbirth. The care we provide is uniquely personal, and in that, has become deeply political. We have spent a long time here—news pundits, members of our family, even us—viewing abortion and reproductive health as something innately political. Although abortion is at the forefront of legislative interference and politicization, more than 1,300 abortion restrictions have been passed in the United States since Roe v Wade in 1973. It is not the only medical care affected by political interference.¹ The United States ranks last in maternal mortality among industrialized nations, and Black women are more than twice as likely to die.² As we grapple with the fallout of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion and begin to recognize how fractured medical care has become—based on zip code—we should take stock of the way legislation and politics have already dictated reproductive health care. Abortion is the salient example, but state policy and legislation have unjustly been determining medical care available to women and other patients on a broader scale for decades. Here are just a few examples.

Postpartum care

The postpartum period is critical for maternal health; it is the time period in which many comorbidities emerge, including hypertensive disorders, postpartum thyroiditis, and mood disorders. Fifty percent of maternal deaths in the United States occur postpartum. Despite the importance of this care, Medicaid coverage for longer than 60 days postpartum varies greatly state to state. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, it was assumed that all states would expand their Medicaid programs to include parents in their coverage plans beyond the guaranteed 60 days, negating the need for a specific postpartum coverage time period. However, the 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion.³ In many states, postpartum patients lose their Medicaid insurance after 60 days if they do not meet the stringent income criteria.

The income level that makes patients ineligible for Medicaid coverage at day 61 postpartum varies widely. In Maryland, a patient can extend their Medicaid coverage for 12 months postpartum if their family of 4 earns less than $73,260 annually (264% of the federal poverty level). However, in Mississippi, an income of more than $6,936 per year for a family of 4 (approximately 25% of the federal poverty level) renders mothers who are 61 days postpartum ineligible for Medicaid coverage.⁴ Thus, many low-income postpartum patients (who are at twice the risk of maternal mortality as affluent patients) find themselves without access to this critical care depending on the decisions of their state legislatures.⁵ The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (known as the COVID-19 Stimulus Package) included a provision that allows states to expand their postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months; currently, 10 additional states are planning to expand postpartum Medicaid for 12 months. While encouraging, 14 states still have not announced plans to utilize this provision or apply for a waiver to extend Medicaid coverage in the postpartum period.⁶

Treatment for substance use

Drug overdose is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death from unintentional causes.⁷ Overdose deaths in the general population climbed between 2020 and 2021, reaching historic highs of more than 100,000 deaths in a 12-month period.⁸ Given the impact of substance use and overdose on maternal mortality, health systems should be maximizing efforts to respond to this public health crisis by implementing effective screening and treatment interventions and establishing clinics and hospitals as safe places to seek care. However, many states have criminalized substance use in pregnant patients and mandate that clinicians report patients who use substances, creating an ethical dilemma for clinicians seeking to screen and treat patients for substance use disorder. Twenty-three states consider substance use in pregnancy to be child abuse, and 3 states consider substance use in pregnancy to be grounds for civil commitment. In Wisconsin, a patient can be detained against their will for the duration of the pregnancy. Twenty-five states require health care professionals to report suspected substance abuse in pregnancy to child protective services or a similar state office.⁹ Even when universal substance use screening is implemented, it has disparate impact on patients of color; Black women who screened positive for substance use in pregnancy were more likely to be reported to child protective services than their White counterparts.¹⁰ The criminalization of pregnant bodies does not lead to improvements in individual, community, or public health, it infringes on the ethical principle of bodily autonomy and puts clinicians at odds with what is best for their patients.

Gender-affirming care

Gender-affirming care is supported by major medical organizations and reduces the risk of depression and suicidality in transgender youth.¹¹ Despite this evidence, several states have passed legislation restricting or banning this care, criminalizing the doctors who provide it. Idaho’s house of representatives passed House Bill 675,¹² which would make providing gender-affirming care a felony, punishable by up to a life sentence. This would extend to parents trying to access care for their children as well as clinicians.

Although abortion is the medical care most conspicuously manipulated by politics and legislation, it is far from the only example. No area of medicine will be untouched by eliminating access to reproductive health care and by the regulation and criminalization of health care workers who provide it. This is a sea change, although state legislative interference and disparities in reproductive health care have been a tocsin of such change for years. We can no longer afford to believe there is a separation between politics and medicine; this directly interferes with our Hippocratic oath to do no harm. A politician in Ohio should not decide whether or not a 13-year-old patient should have to carry a pregnancy to term; the house of representatives in Idaho should not put someone’s transgender child at increased risk of depression and suicidality by making their medical care a felony. Colleagues in Texas should not be punishable by life in prison for providing abortion care.¹³ As a physician, I cannot stand by when, facing a maternal mortality crisis, state politicians decide whether a patient living below the poverty line should have access to postpartum care.

I am neither a politician nor a legal scholar. I am a physician who takes care of people in this intimate and powerful space of healing and support between doctor and patient. What should we do? We need to come together to find the answers. We need to vote if we haven’t before. And we need to vote differently if we have elected lawmakers who politicize and dangerously interfere with medicine, the well-being of our patients, and our ability to carry out our duty as physicians in our patients’ best interests. We need to tell our stories—to each other, to our newspapers, to our neighbors, and to our legislatures. If we are leading organizations, we can use the power held in our institutions to commit to providing care to the fullest extent possible, commit to protecting our clinicians providing evidence-based care, and encourage legislators who use medicine as a political bargaining chip to reverse course. Medicine is not an apolitical field, and we can no longer uphold that paradigm. Our patients lives, and our livelihood as healers and caretakers, depends on our collective action against it. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Lauren Sobel, DO, MPH, for her contributions to a presentation on this subject.

Like many of you, I am an obstetrician-gynecologist who provides full-spectrum reproductive health care. Our jobs demand great intimacy—we are with patients as they meet their first born, learn of a miscarriage diagnosis, or decide to end their pregnancy. I have performed an uncomplicated, joyful vaginal delivery, then within an hour rushed a different patient’s gurney to the intensive care unit as she became acutely hypotensive and hypoxic, developing ARDS after a stillbirth. The care we provide is uniquely personal, and in that, has become deeply political. We have spent a long time here—news pundits, members of our family, even us—viewing abortion and reproductive health as something innately political. Although abortion is at the forefront of legislative interference and politicization, more than 1,300 abortion restrictions have been passed in the United States since Roe v Wade in 1973. It is not the only medical care affected by political interference.¹ The United States ranks last in maternal mortality among industrialized nations, and Black women are more than twice as likely to die.² As we grapple with the fallout of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion and begin to recognize how fractured medical care has become—based on zip code—we should take stock of the way legislation and politics have already dictated reproductive health care. Abortion is the salient example, but state policy and legislation have unjustly been determining medical care available to women and other patients on a broader scale for decades. Here are just a few examples.

Postpartum care

The postpartum period is critical for maternal health; it is the time period in which many comorbidities emerge, including hypertensive disorders, postpartum thyroiditis, and mood disorders. Fifty percent of maternal deaths in the United States occur postpartum. Despite the importance of this care, Medicaid coverage for longer than 60 days postpartum varies greatly state to state. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, it was assumed that all states would expand their Medicaid programs to include parents in their coverage plans beyond the guaranteed 60 days, negating the need for a specific postpartum coverage time period. However, the 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion.³ In many states, postpartum patients lose their Medicaid insurance after 60 days if they do not meet the stringent income criteria.

The income level that makes patients ineligible for Medicaid coverage at day 61 postpartum varies widely. In Maryland, a patient can extend their Medicaid coverage for 12 months postpartum if their family of 4 earns less than $73,260 annually (264% of the federal poverty level). However, in Mississippi, an income of more than $6,936 per year for a family of 4 (approximately 25% of the federal poverty level) renders mothers who are 61 days postpartum ineligible for Medicaid coverage.⁴ Thus, many low-income postpartum patients (who are at twice the risk of maternal mortality as affluent patients) find themselves without access to this critical care depending on the decisions of their state legislatures.⁵ The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (known as the COVID-19 Stimulus Package) included a provision that allows states to expand their postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months; currently, 10 additional states are planning to expand postpartum Medicaid for 12 months. While encouraging, 14 states still have not announced plans to utilize this provision or apply for a waiver to extend Medicaid coverage in the postpartum period.⁶

Treatment for substance use

Drug overdose is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death from unintentional causes.⁷ Overdose deaths in the general population climbed between 2020 and 2021, reaching historic highs of more than 100,000 deaths in a 12-month period.⁸ Given the impact of substance use and overdose on maternal mortality, health systems should be maximizing efforts to respond to this public health crisis by implementing effective screening and treatment interventions and establishing clinics and hospitals as safe places to seek care. However, many states have criminalized substance use in pregnant patients and mandate that clinicians report patients who use substances, creating an ethical dilemma for clinicians seeking to screen and treat patients for substance use disorder. Twenty-three states consider substance use in pregnancy to be child abuse, and 3 states consider substance use in pregnancy to be grounds for civil commitment. In Wisconsin, a patient can be detained against their will for the duration of the pregnancy. Twenty-five states require health care professionals to report suspected substance abuse in pregnancy to child protective services or a similar state office.⁹ Even when universal substance use screening is implemented, it has disparate impact on patients of color; Black women who screened positive for substance use in pregnancy were more likely to be reported to child protective services than their White counterparts.¹⁰ The criminalization of pregnant bodies does not lead to improvements in individual, community, or public health, it infringes on the ethical principle of bodily autonomy and puts clinicians at odds with what is best for their patients.

Gender-affirming care

Gender-affirming care is supported by major medical organizations and reduces the risk of depression and suicidality in transgender youth.¹¹ Despite this evidence, several states have passed legislation restricting or banning this care, criminalizing the doctors who provide it. Idaho’s house of representatives passed House Bill 675,¹² which would make providing gender-affirming care a felony, punishable by up to a life sentence. This would extend to parents trying to access care for their children as well as clinicians.

Although abortion is the medical care most conspicuously manipulated by politics and legislation, it is far from the only example. No area of medicine will be untouched by eliminating access to reproductive health care and by the regulation and criminalization of health care workers who provide it. This is a sea change, although state legislative interference and disparities in reproductive health care have been a tocsin of such change for years. We can no longer afford to believe there is a separation between politics and medicine; this directly interferes with our Hippocratic oath to do no harm. A politician in Ohio should not decide whether or not a 13-year-old patient should have to carry a pregnancy to term; the house of representatives in Idaho should not put someone’s transgender child at increased risk of depression and suicidality by making their medical care a felony. Colleagues in Texas should not be punishable by life in prison for providing abortion care.¹³ As a physician, I cannot stand by when, facing a maternal mortality crisis, state politicians decide whether a patient living below the poverty line should have access to postpartum care.

I am neither a politician nor a legal scholar. I am a physician who takes care of people in this intimate and powerful space of healing and support between doctor and patient. What should we do? We need to come together to find the answers. We need to vote if we haven’t before. And we need to vote differently if we have elected lawmakers who politicize and dangerously interfere with medicine, the well-being of our patients, and our ability to carry out our duty as physicians in our patients’ best interests. We need to tell our stories—to each other, to our newspapers, to our neighbors, and to our legislatures. If we are leading organizations, we can use the power held in our institutions to commit to providing care to the fullest extent possible, commit to protecting our clinicians providing evidence-based care, and encourage legislators who use medicine as a political bargaining chip to reverse course. Medicine is not an apolitical field, and we can no longer uphold that paradigm. Our patients lives, and our livelihood as healers and caretakers, depends on our collective action against it. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Lauren Sobel, DO, MPH, for her contributions to a presentation on this subject.

Like many of you, I am an obstetrician-gynecologist who provides full-spectrum reproductive health care. Our jobs demand great intimacy—we are with patients as they meet their first born, learn of a miscarriage diagnosis, or decide to end their pregnancy. I have performed an uncomplicated, joyful vaginal delivery, then within an hour rushed a different patient’s gurney to the intensive care unit as she became acutely hypotensive and hypoxic, developing ARDS after a stillbirth. The care we provide is uniquely personal, and in that, has become deeply political. We have spent a long time here—news pundits, members of our family, even us—viewing abortion and reproductive health as something innately political. Although abortion is at the forefront of legislative interference and politicization, more than 1,300 abortion restrictions have been passed in the United States since Roe v Wade in 1973. It is not the only medical care affected by political interference.¹ The United States ranks last in maternal mortality among industrialized nations, and Black women are more than twice as likely to die.² As we grapple with the fallout of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion and begin to recognize how fractured medical care has become—based on zip code—we should take stock of the way legislation and politics have already dictated reproductive health care. Abortion is the salient example, but state policy and legislation have unjustly been determining medical care available to women and other patients on a broader scale for decades. Here are just a few examples.

Postpartum care

The postpartum period is critical for maternal health; it is the time period in which many comorbidities emerge, including hypertensive disorders, postpartum thyroiditis, and mood disorders. Fifty percent of maternal deaths in the United States occur postpartum. Despite the importance of this care, Medicaid coverage for longer than 60 days postpartum varies greatly state to state. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, it was assumed that all states would expand their Medicaid programs to include parents in their coverage plans beyond the guaranteed 60 days, negating the need for a specific postpartum coverage time period. However, the 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion.³ In many states, postpartum patients lose their Medicaid insurance after 60 days if they do not meet the stringent income criteria.

The income level that makes patients ineligible for Medicaid coverage at day 61 postpartum varies widely. In Maryland, a patient can extend their Medicaid coverage for 12 months postpartum if their family of 4 earns less than $73,260 annually (264% of the federal poverty level). However, in Mississippi, an income of more than $6,936 per year for a family of 4 (approximately 25% of the federal poverty level) renders mothers who are 61 days postpartum ineligible for Medicaid coverage.⁴ Thus, many low-income postpartum patients (who are at twice the risk of maternal mortality as affluent patients) find themselves without access to this critical care depending on the decisions of their state legislatures.⁵ The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (known as the COVID-19 Stimulus Package) included a provision that allows states to expand their postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months; currently, 10 additional states are planning to expand postpartum Medicaid for 12 months. While encouraging, 14 states still have not announced plans to utilize this provision or apply for a waiver to extend Medicaid coverage in the postpartum period.⁶

Treatment for substance use

Drug overdose is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death from unintentional causes.⁷ Overdose deaths in the general population climbed between 2020 and 2021, reaching historic highs of more than 100,000 deaths in a 12-month period.⁸ Given the impact of substance use and overdose on maternal mortality, health systems should be maximizing efforts to respond to this public health crisis by implementing effective screening and treatment interventions and establishing clinics and hospitals as safe places to seek care. However, many states have criminalized substance use in pregnant patients and mandate that clinicians report patients who use substances, creating an ethical dilemma for clinicians seeking to screen and treat patients for substance use disorder. Twenty-three states consider substance use in pregnancy to be child abuse, and 3 states consider substance use in pregnancy to be grounds for civil commitment. In Wisconsin, a patient can be detained against their will for the duration of the pregnancy. Twenty-five states require health care professionals to report suspected substance abuse in pregnancy to child protective services or a similar state office.⁹ Even when universal substance use screening is implemented, it has disparate impact on patients of color; Black women who screened positive for substance use in pregnancy were more likely to be reported to child protective services than their White counterparts.¹⁰ The criminalization of pregnant bodies does not lead to improvements in individual, community, or public health, it infringes on the ethical principle of bodily autonomy and puts clinicians at odds with what is best for their patients.

Gender-affirming care

Gender-affirming care is supported by major medical organizations and reduces the risk of depression and suicidality in transgender youth.¹¹ Despite this evidence, several states have passed legislation restricting or banning this care, criminalizing the doctors who provide it. Idaho’s house of representatives passed House Bill 675,¹² which would make providing gender-affirming care a felony, punishable by up to a life sentence. This would extend to parents trying to access care for their children as well as clinicians.

Although abortion is the medical care most conspicuously manipulated by politics and legislation, it is far from the only example. No area of medicine will be untouched by eliminating access to reproductive health care and by the regulation and criminalization of health care workers who provide it. This is a sea change, although state legislative interference and disparities in reproductive health care have been a tocsin of such change for years. We can no longer afford to believe there is a separation between politics and medicine; this directly interferes with our Hippocratic oath to do no harm. A politician in Ohio should not decide whether or not a 13-year-old patient should have to carry a pregnancy to term; the house of representatives in Idaho should not put someone’s transgender child at increased risk of depression and suicidality by making their medical care a felony. Colleagues in Texas should not be punishable by life in prison for providing abortion care.¹³ As a physician, I cannot stand by when, facing a maternal mortality crisis, state politicians decide whether a patient living below the poverty line should have access to postpartum care.

I am neither a politician nor a legal scholar. I am a physician who takes care of people in this intimate and powerful space of healing and support between doctor and patient. What should we do? We need to come together to find the answers. We need to vote if we haven’t before. And we need to vote differently if we have elected lawmakers who politicize and dangerously interfere with medicine, the well-being of our patients, and our ability to carry out our duty as physicians in our patients’ best interests. We need to tell our stories—to each other, to our newspapers, to our neighbors, and to our legislatures. If we are leading organizations, we can use the power held in our institutions to commit to providing care to the fullest extent possible, commit to protecting our clinicians providing evidence-based care, and encourage legislators who use medicine as a political bargaining chip to reverse course. Medicine is not an apolitical field, and we can no longer uphold that paradigm. Our patients lives, and our livelihood as healers and caretakers, depends on our collective action against it. ●

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Lauren Sobel, DO, MPH, for her contributions to a presentation on this subject.