CASE Pregnant woman with abnormal vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 24 weeks of gestation requests evaluation for increased frothy, whitish-gray vaginal discharge with a fishy odor. She notes that her underclothes constantly feel damp. The vaginal pH is 4.5, and the amine test is positive.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What obstetrical complications may be associated with this condition?
• How should her condition be treated?

Meet our perpetrator

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is one of the most common conditions associated with vaginal discharge among women of reproductive age. It is characterized by a polymicrobial alteration of the vaginal microbiome, and most distinctly, a relative absence of vaginal lactobacilli. This review discusses the microbiology, epidemiology, specific obstetric and gynecologic complications, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of BV.

The role of vaginal flora

Estrogen has a fundamental role in regulating the normal state of the vagina. In a woman’s reproductive years, estrogen increases glycogen in the vaginal epithelial cells, and the increased glycogen concentration promotes colonization by lactobacilli. The lack of estrogen in pre- and postmenopausal women inhibits the growth of the vaginal lactobacilli, leading to a high vaginal pH, which facilitates the growth of bacteria, particularly anaerobes, that can cause BV.

The vaginal microbiome is polymicrobial and has been classified into at least 5 community state types (CSTs). Four CSTs are dominated by lactobacilli. A fifth CST is characterized by the absence of lactobacilli and high concentrations of obligate or facultative anaerobes.¹ The hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli predominate in normal vaginal flora and make up 70% to 90% of the total microbiome. These hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli are associated with reduced vaginal proinflammatory cytokines and a highly acidic vaginal pH. Both factors defend against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).²

BV is a polymicrobial disorder marked by the significant reduction in the number of vaginal lactobacilli (FIGURE 1). A recent study showed that BV is associated first with a decrease in Lactobacillus crispatus, followed by increase in Prevotella bivia, Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, and Megasphaera type 1.³ The polymicrobial load is increased by a factor of up to 1,000, compared with normal vaginal flora.⁴ BV should be considered a biofilm infection caused by adherence of G vaginalis to the vaginal epithelium.⁵ This biofilm creates a favorable environment for the overgrowth of obligate anaerobic bacteria.

BMI factors into epidemiology

BV is the leading cause of vaginal discharge in reproductive-age women. In the United States, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimated a prevalence of 29% in the general population and 50% in Black women aged 14 to 49 years.⁶ In 2013, Kenyon and colleagues performed a systematic review to assess the worldwide epidemiology of BV, and the prevalence varied by country. Within the US population, rates were highest among non-Hispanic, Black women.⁷ Brookheart and colleagues demonstrated that, even after controlling for race, overweight and obese women had a higher frequency of BV compared with leaner women. In this investigation, the overall prevalence of BV was 28.1%. When categorized by body mass index (BMI), the prevalence was 21.3% in lean women, 30.4% in overweight women, and 34.5% in obese women (P<.001). The authors also found that Black women had a higher prevalence, independent of BMI, compared with White women.⁸

Complications may occur. BV is notable for having several serious sequelae in both pregnant and nonpregnant women. For obstetric patients, these sequelae include an increased risk of preterm birth; first trimester spontaneous abortion, particularly in the setting of in vitro fertilization; intra-amniotic infection; and endometritis.^9,10 The risk of preterm birth increases by a factor of 2 in infected women; however, most women with BV do not deliver preterm.⁴ The risk of endometritis is increased 6-fold in women with BV.¹¹ Nonpregnant women with BV are at increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, postoperative infections, and an increased susceptibility to STIs such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes simplex virus, and HIV.^12-15 The risk for vaginal-cuff cellulitis and abscess after hysterectomy is increased 6-fold in the setting of BV.¹⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

BV is characterized by a milky, homogenous, and malodorous vaginal discharge accompanied by vulvovaginal discomfort and vulvar irritation. Vaginal inflammation typically is absent. The associated odor is fishy, and this odor is accentuated when potassium hydroxide (KOH) is added to the vaginal discharge (amine or “whiff” test) or after the patient has coitus. The distinctive odor is due to the release of organic acids and polyamines that are byproducts of anaerobic bacterial metabolism of putrescine and cadaverine. This release is enhanced by exposure of vaginal secretions to alkaline substances such as KOH or semen.

Diagnostic tests and criteria. The diagnosis of BV is made using Amsel criteria or Gram stain with Nugent scoring; bacterial culture is not recommended. Amsel criteria include:

• homogenous, thin, white-gray discharge
• >20% clue cells on saline microscopy (FIGURE 2)
• a pH >4.5 of vaginal fluid
• positive KOH whiff test.

For diagnosis, 3 of the 4 Amsel criteria must be present.¹⁷ Gram stain with Nugent score typically is used for research purposes. Nugent scoring assigns a value to different bacterial morphotypes on Gram stain of vaginal secretions. A score of 7 to 10 is consistent with BV.¹⁸

Oral and topical treatments

Treatment is recommended for symptomatic patients. Treatment may reduce the risk of transmission and acquisition of other STIs. The TABLE summarizes Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for BV treatment,¹⁹ with options including both oral and topical regimens. Oral and topical metronidazole and oral and topical clindamycin are equally effective at eradicating the local source of infection²⁰; however, only oral metronidazole and oral clindamycin are effective in preventing the systemic complications of BV. Oral metronidazole has more adverse effects than oral clindamycin—including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and a disulfiram-like reaction (characterized by flushing, dizziness, throbbing headache, chest and abdominal discomfort, and a distinct hangover effect in addition to nausea and vomiting). However, oral clindamycin can cause antibiotic-associated colitis and is more expensive than metronidazole.

Currently, there are no single-dose regimens for the treatment of BV readily available in the United States. Secnidazole, a 5-nitroimidazole with a longer half-life than metronidazole, (17 vs 8 hours) has been used as therapy in Europe and Asia but is not yet available commercially in the United States.²¹ Hiller and colleagues found that 1 g and 2 g secnidazole oral granules were superior to placebo in treating BV.²² A larger randomized trial comparing this regimen to standard treatment is necessary before this therapy is adopted as the standard of care.

Continue to: Managing recurrent disease...

Managing recurrent disease, a common problem. Bradshaw and colleagues noted that, although the initial treatment of BV is effective in approximately 80% of women, up to 50% have a recurrence within 12 months.²³ Data are limited regarding optimal treatment for recurrent infections; however, most regimens consist of some form of suppressive therapy. One regimen includes one full applicator of metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% twice weekly for 6 months.²⁴ A second regimen consists of vaginal boric acid capsules 600 mg once daily at bedtime for 21 days. Upon completion of boric acid therapy, metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% should be administered twice weekly for 6 months.²⁵ A third option is oral metronidazole 2 g and fluconazole 250 mg once every month.²⁶ Of note, boric acid can be fatal if consumed orally and is not recommended during pregnancy.

Most recently, a randomized trial evaluated the ability of L crispatus to prevent BV recurrence. After completion of standard treatment therapy with metronidazole, women were randomly assigned to receive vaginally administered L crispatus (152 patients) or placebo (76 patients) for 11 weeks. In the intention-to-treat population, recurrent BV occurred in 30% of patients in the L crispatus group and 45% of patients in the placebo group. The use of L crispatus significantly reduced recurrence of BV by one-third (P = .01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.87).²⁷ These findings are encouraging; however, confirmatory studies are needed before adopting this as standard of care.

Should sexual partners be treated as well? BV has not traditionally been considered an STI, and the CDC does not currently recommend treatment of partners of women who have BV. However, in women who have sex with women, the rate of BV concordance is high, and in women who have sex with men, coitus can clearly influence disease activity. Therefore, in patients with refractory BV, we recommend treatment of the sexual partner(s) with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days. For women having sex with men, we also recommend consistent use of condoms, at least until the patient’s infection is better controlled.²⁸

CASE Resolved

The patient’s clinical findings are indicative of BV. This condition is associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery and intrapartum and postpartum infection. To reduce the risk of these systemic complications, she was treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Within 1 week of completing treatment, she noted complete resolution of the malodorous discharge. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with abnormal vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 24 weeks of gestation requests evaluation for increased frothy, whitish-gray vaginal discharge with a fishy odor. She notes that her underclothes constantly feel damp. The vaginal pH is 4.5, and the amine test is positive.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What obstetrical complications may be associated with this condition?
• How should her condition be treated?

Meet our perpetrator

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is one of the most common conditions associated with vaginal discharge among women of reproductive age. It is characterized by a polymicrobial alteration of the vaginal microbiome, and most distinctly, a relative absence of vaginal lactobacilli. This review discusses the microbiology, epidemiology, specific obstetric and gynecologic complications, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of BV.

The role of vaginal flora

Estrogen has a fundamental role in regulating the normal state of the vagina. In a woman’s reproductive years, estrogen increases glycogen in the vaginal epithelial cells, and the increased glycogen concentration promotes colonization by lactobacilli. The lack of estrogen in pre- and postmenopausal women inhibits the growth of the vaginal lactobacilli, leading to a high vaginal pH, which facilitates the growth of bacteria, particularly anaerobes, that can cause BV.

The vaginal microbiome is polymicrobial and has been classified into at least 5 community state types (CSTs). Four CSTs are dominated by lactobacilli. A fifth CST is characterized by the absence of lactobacilli and high concentrations of obligate or facultative anaerobes.¹ The hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli predominate in normal vaginal flora and make up 70% to 90% of the total microbiome. These hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli are associated with reduced vaginal proinflammatory cytokines and a highly acidic vaginal pH. Both factors defend against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).²

BV is a polymicrobial disorder marked by the significant reduction in the number of vaginal lactobacilli (FIGURE 1). A recent study showed that BV is associated first with a decrease in Lactobacillus crispatus, followed by increase in Prevotella bivia, Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, and Megasphaera type 1.³ The polymicrobial load is increased by a factor of up to 1,000, compared with normal vaginal flora.⁴ BV should be considered a biofilm infection caused by adherence of G vaginalis to the vaginal epithelium.⁵ This biofilm creates a favorable environment for the overgrowth of obligate anaerobic bacteria.

BMI factors into epidemiology

BV is the leading cause of vaginal discharge in reproductive-age women. In the United States, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimated a prevalence of 29% in the general population and 50% in Black women aged 14 to 49 years.⁶ In 2013, Kenyon and colleagues performed a systematic review to assess the worldwide epidemiology of BV, and the prevalence varied by country. Within the US population, rates were highest among non-Hispanic, Black women.⁷ Brookheart and colleagues demonstrated that, even after controlling for race, overweight and obese women had a higher frequency of BV compared with leaner women. In this investigation, the overall prevalence of BV was 28.1%. When categorized by body mass index (BMI), the prevalence was 21.3% in lean women, 30.4% in overweight women, and 34.5% in obese women (P<.001). The authors also found that Black women had a higher prevalence, independent of BMI, compared with White women.⁸

Complications may occur. BV is notable for having several serious sequelae in both pregnant and nonpregnant women. For obstetric patients, these sequelae include an increased risk of preterm birth; first trimester spontaneous abortion, particularly in the setting of in vitro fertilization; intra-amniotic infection; and endometritis.^9,10 The risk of preterm birth increases by a factor of 2 in infected women; however, most women with BV do not deliver preterm.⁴ The risk of endometritis is increased 6-fold in women with BV.¹¹ Nonpregnant women with BV are at increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, postoperative infections, and an increased susceptibility to STIs such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes simplex virus, and HIV.^12-15 The risk for vaginal-cuff cellulitis and abscess after hysterectomy is increased 6-fold in the setting of BV.¹⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

BV is characterized by a milky, homogenous, and malodorous vaginal discharge accompanied by vulvovaginal discomfort and vulvar irritation. Vaginal inflammation typically is absent. The associated odor is fishy, and this odor is accentuated when potassium hydroxide (KOH) is added to the vaginal discharge (amine or “whiff” test) or after the patient has coitus. The distinctive odor is due to the release of organic acids and polyamines that are byproducts of anaerobic bacterial metabolism of putrescine and cadaverine. This release is enhanced by exposure of vaginal secretions to alkaline substances such as KOH or semen.

Diagnostic tests and criteria. The diagnosis of BV is made using Amsel criteria or Gram stain with Nugent scoring; bacterial culture is not recommended. Amsel criteria include:

• homogenous, thin, white-gray discharge
• >20% clue cells on saline microscopy (FIGURE 2)
• a pH >4.5 of vaginal fluid
• positive KOH whiff test.

For diagnosis, 3 of the 4 Amsel criteria must be present.¹⁷ Gram stain with Nugent score typically is used for research purposes. Nugent scoring assigns a value to different bacterial morphotypes on Gram stain of vaginal secretions. A score of 7 to 10 is consistent with BV.¹⁸

Oral and topical treatments

Treatment is recommended for symptomatic patients. Treatment may reduce the risk of transmission and acquisition of other STIs. The TABLE summarizes Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for BV treatment,¹⁹ with options including both oral and topical regimens. Oral and topical metronidazole and oral and topical clindamycin are equally effective at eradicating the local source of infection²⁰; however, only oral metronidazole and oral clindamycin are effective in preventing the systemic complications of BV. Oral metronidazole has more adverse effects than oral clindamycin—including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and a disulfiram-like reaction (characterized by flushing, dizziness, throbbing headache, chest and abdominal discomfort, and a distinct hangover effect in addition to nausea and vomiting). However, oral clindamycin can cause antibiotic-associated colitis and is more expensive than metronidazole.

Currently, there are no single-dose regimens for the treatment of BV readily available in the United States. Secnidazole, a 5-nitroimidazole with a longer half-life than metronidazole, (17 vs 8 hours) has been used as therapy in Europe and Asia but is not yet available commercially in the United States.²¹ Hiller and colleagues found that 1 g and 2 g secnidazole oral granules were superior to placebo in treating BV.²² A larger randomized trial comparing this regimen to standard treatment is necessary before this therapy is adopted as the standard of care.

Continue to: Managing recurrent disease...

Managing recurrent disease, a common problem. Bradshaw and colleagues noted that, although the initial treatment of BV is effective in approximately 80% of women, up to 50% have a recurrence within 12 months.²³ Data are limited regarding optimal treatment for recurrent infections; however, most regimens consist of some form of suppressive therapy. One regimen includes one full applicator of metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% twice weekly for 6 months.²⁴ A second regimen consists of vaginal boric acid capsules 600 mg once daily at bedtime for 21 days. Upon completion of boric acid therapy, metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% should be administered twice weekly for 6 months.²⁵ A third option is oral metronidazole 2 g and fluconazole 250 mg once every month.²⁶ Of note, boric acid can be fatal if consumed orally and is not recommended during pregnancy.

Most recently, a randomized trial evaluated the ability of L crispatus to prevent BV recurrence. After completion of standard treatment therapy with metronidazole, women were randomly assigned to receive vaginally administered L crispatus (152 patients) or placebo (76 patients) for 11 weeks. In the intention-to-treat population, recurrent BV occurred in 30% of patients in the L crispatus group and 45% of patients in the placebo group. The use of L crispatus significantly reduced recurrence of BV by one-third (P = .01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.87).²⁷ These findings are encouraging; however, confirmatory studies are needed before adopting this as standard of care.

Should sexual partners be treated as well? BV has not traditionally been considered an STI, and the CDC does not currently recommend treatment of partners of women who have BV. However, in women who have sex with women, the rate of BV concordance is high, and in women who have sex with men, coitus can clearly influence disease activity. Therefore, in patients with refractory BV, we recommend treatment of the sexual partner(s) with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days. For women having sex with men, we also recommend consistent use of condoms, at least until the patient’s infection is better controlled.²⁸

CASE Resolved

The patient’s clinical findings are indicative of BV. This condition is associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery and intrapartum and postpartum infection. To reduce the risk of these systemic complications, she was treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Within 1 week of completing treatment, she noted complete resolution of the malodorous discharge. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with abnormal vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 24 weeks of gestation requests evaluation for increased frothy, whitish-gray vaginal discharge with a fishy odor. She notes that her underclothes constantly feel damp. The vaginal pH is 4.5, and the amine test is positive.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What obstetrical complications may be associated with this condition?
• How should her condition be treated?

Meet our perpetrator

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is one of the most common conditions associated with vaginal discharge among women of reproductive age. It is characterized by a polymicrobial alteration of the vaginal microbiome, and most distinctly, a relative absence of vaginal lactobacilli. This review discusses the microbiology, epidemiology, specific obstetric and gynecologic complications, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of BV.

The role of vaginal flora

Estrogen has a fundamental role in regulating the normal state of the vagina. In a woman’s reproductive years, estrogen increases glycogen in the vaginal epithelial cells, and the increased glycogen concentration promotes colonization by lactobacilli. The lack of estrogen in pre- and postmenopausal women inhibits the growth of the vaginal lactobacilli, leading to a high vaginal pH, which facilitates the growth of bacteria, particularly anaerobes, that can cause BV.

The vaginal microbiome is polymicrobial and has been classified into at least 5 community state types (CSTs). Four CSTs are dominated by lactobacilli. A fifth CST is characterized by the absence of lactobacilli and high concentrations of obligate or facultative anaerobes.¹ The hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli predominate in normal vaginal flora and make up 70% to 90% of the total microbiome. These hydrogen peroxide–producing lactobacilli are associated with reduced vaginal proinflammatory cytokines and a highly acidic vaginal pH. Both factors defend against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).²

BV is a polymicrobial disorder marked by the significant reduction in the number of vaginal lactobacilli (FIGURE 1). A recent study showed that BV is associated first with a decrease in Lactobacillus crispatus, followed by increase in Prevotella bivia, Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, and Megasphaera type 1.³ The polymicrobial load is increased by a factor of up to 1,000, compared with normal vaginal flora.⁴ BV should be considered a biofilm infection caused by adherence of G vaginalis to the vaginal epithelium.⁵ This biofilm creates a favorable environment for the overgrowth of obligate anaerobic bacteria.

BMI factors into epidemiology

BV is the leading cause of vaginal discharge in reproductive-age women. In the United States, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimated a prevalence of 29% in the general population and 50% in Black women aged 14 to 49 years.⁶ In 2013, Kenyon and colleagues performed a systematic review to assess the worldwide epidemiology of BV, and the prevalence varied by country. Within the US population, rates were highest among non-Hispanic, Black women.⁷ Brookheart and colleagues demonstrated that, even after controlling for race, overweight and obese women had a higher frequency of BV compared with leaner women. In this investigation, the overall prevalence of BV was 28.1%. When categorized by body mass index (BMI), the prevalence was 21.3% in lean women, 30.4% in overweight women, and 34.5% in obese women (P<.001). The authors also found that Black women had a higher prevalence, independent of BMI, compared with White women.⁸

Complications may occur. BV is notable for having several serious sequelae in both pregnant and nonpregnant women. For obstetric patients, these sequelae include an increased risk of preterm birth; first trimester spontaneous abortion, particularly in the setting of in vitro fertilization; intra-amniotic infection; and endometritis.^9,10 The risk of preterm birth increases by a factor of 2 in infected women; however, most women with BV do not deliver preterm.⁴ The risk of endometritis is increased 6-fold in women with BV.¹¹ Nonpregnant women with BV are at increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, postoperative infections, and an increased susceptibility to STIs such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes simplex virus, and HIV.^12-15 The risk for vaginal-cuff cellulitis and abscess after hysterectomy is increased 6-fold in the setting of BV.¹⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

BV is characterized by a milky, homogenous, and malodorous vaginal discharge accompanied by vulvovaginal discomfort and vulvar irritation. Vaginal inflammation typically is absent. The associated odor is fishy, and this odor is accentuated when potassium hydroxide (KOH) is added to the vaginal discharge (amine or “whiff” test) or after the patient has coitus. The distinctive odor is due to the release of organic acids and polyamines that are byproducts of anaerobic bacterial metabolism of putrescine and cadaverine. This release is enhanced by exposure of vaginal secretions to alkaline substances such as KOH or semen.

Diagnostic tests and criteria. The diagnosis of BV is made using Amsel criteria or Gram stain with Nugent scoring; bacterial culture is not recommended. Amsel criteria include:

• homogenous, thin, white-gray discharge
• >20% clue cells on saline microscopy (FIGURE 2)
• a pH >4.5 of vaginal fluid
• positive KOH whiff test.

For diagnosis, 3 of the 4 Amsel criteria must be present.¹⁷ Gram stain with Nugent score typically is used for research purposes. Nugent scoring assigns a value to different bacterial morphotypes on Gram stain of vaginal secretions. A score of 7 to 10 is consistent with BV.¹⁸

Oral and topical treatments

Treatment is recommended for symptomatic patients. Treatment may reduce the risk of transmission and acquisition of other STIs. The TABLE summarizes Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for BV treatment,¹⁹ with options including both oral and topical regimens. Oral and topical metronidazole and oral and topical clindamycin are equally effective at eradicating the local source of infection²⁰; however, only oral metronidazole and oral clindamycin are effective in preventing the systemic complications of BV. Oral metronidazole has more adverse effects than oral clindamycin—including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and a disulfiram-like reaction (characterized by flushing, dizziness, throbbing headache, chest and abdominal discomfort, and a distinct hangover effect in addition to nausea and vomiting). However, oral clindamycin can cause antibiotic-associated colitis and is more expensive than metronidazole.

Currently, there are no single-dose regimens for the treatment of BV readily available in the United States. Secnidazole, a 5-nitroimidazole with a longer half-life than metronidazole, (17 vs 8 hours) has been used as therapy in Europe and Asia but is not yet available commercially in the United States.²¹ Hiller and colleagues found that 1 g and 2 g secnidazole oral granules were superior to placebo in treating BV.²² A larger randomized trial comparing this regimen to standard treatment is necessary before this therapy is adopted as the standard of care.

Continue to: Managing recurrent disease...

Managing recurrent disease, a common problem. Bradshaw and colleagues noted that, although the initial treatment of BV is effective in approximately 80% of women, up to 50% have a recurrence within 12 months.²³ Data are limited regarding optimal treatment for recurrent infections; however, most regimens consist of some form of suppressive therapy. One regimen includes one full applicator of metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% twice weekly for 6 months.²⁴ A second regimen consists of vaginal boric acid capsules 600 mg once daily at bedtime for 21 days. Upon completion of boric acid therapy, metronidazole vaginal gel 0.75% should be administered twice weekly for 6 months.²⁵ A third option is oral metronidazole 2 g and fluconazole 250 mg once every month.²⁶ Of note, boric acid can be fatal if consumed orally and is not recommended during pregnancy.

Most recently, a randomized trial evaluated the ability of L crispatus to prevent BV recurrence. After completion of standard treatment therapy with metronidazole, women were randomly assigned to receive vaginally administered L crispatus (152 patients) or placebo (76 patients) for 11 weeks. In the intention-to-treat population, recurrent BV occurred in 30% of patients in the L crispatus group and 45% of patients in the placebo group. The use of L crispatus significantly reduced recurrence of BV by one-third (P = .01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.87).²⁷ These findings are encouraging; however, confirmatory studies are needed before adopting this as standard of care.

Should sexual partners be treated as well? BV has not traditionally been considered an STI, and the CDC does not currently recommend treatment of partners of women who have BV. However, in women who have sex with women, the rate of BV concordance is high, and in women who have sex with men, coitus can clearly influence disease activity. Therefore, in patients with refractory BV, we recommend treatment of the sexual partner(s) with metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days. For women having sex with men, we also recommend consistent use of condoms, at least until the patient’s infection is better controlled.²⁸

CASE Resolved

The patient’s clinical findings are indicative of BV. This condition is associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery and intrapartum and postpartum infection. To reduce the risk of these systemic complications, she was treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Within 1 week of completing treatment, she noted complete resolution of the malodorous discharge. ●

Although recent events have spurred much discourse regarding systemic racism, the issue of racism is old, very old. Unfortunately, our gynecologic surgery history is rooted in racism, with numerous documented procedures performed on enslaved women without their consent. Over the years, racism has continued to permeate gynecologic surgery in so far as access to quality care, patient outcomes, and inclusion in research. While racial disparities with regard to stage at diagnosis and survival of gynecologic malignancy has been documented, this discussion is outside the scope of this article.

Racial disparities in gyn surgery: The evidence

More data exist with regard to hysterectomy and racism than with any other gynecologic surgery. Most notably, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is less likely to occur for minority women, even in universally insured patient populations and when controlling for factors predisposing patients to an abdominal approach.

Minority women undergo MIS for hysterectomy less often

Ranjit and colleagues assessed hysterectomy data between 2006 and 2010 from National TRICARE Prime and Prime Plus data to evaluate if racial differences existed in a universally insured population of US Armed Services members and their dependents. African American patients were significantly less likely than White patients to undergo a total vaginal hysterectomy (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.69) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60–0.71) compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Asian patients were also less likely to receive the vaginal (RRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60–0.84) or laparoscopic (RRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58–0.83) approach to hysterectomy than White patients.¹ These findings remained when controlled for surgery indication, suggesting that racial inequity was not attributed solely to preoperative patient factors. However, the authors could not control for specific patient factors such as body mass index and uterine weight.

Katon and colleagues reviewed data on patients who underwent hysterectomy for uterine fibroids at a Veterans Affairs hospital and found 99 excess abdominal hysterectomies were performed among Black women compared with White women. Despite controlling for predisposing factors related to abdominal surgery, facility, and geography (teaching hospital, higher volume hysterectomy), Black women were still less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy.² The difference in approach between both groups remained largely unexplained.²

Pollack and colleagues reviewed hysterectomy data from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery Databases between 2010 and 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. They found that African American and Hispanic women were less likely to undergo vaginal (adjusted standardized prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90–0.96 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93−0.97, respectively) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87−0.94 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92−0.98, respectively) than White women. Asian/Pacific Islander women were less likely to undergo vaginal hysterectomy (aPR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81−0.96). They also found that hospitals providing care to more racial/ethnic minority women performed more abdominal and fewer vaginal procedures compared with other hospitals.³

Sanei-Moghaddam and colleagues reviewed data from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center–affiliated hospitals and found that European-American women had 0.47 times lower odds of undergoing abdominal hysterectomy compared with ethnic/race minority group women. Also, traditional Medicaid and Medicare enrollees had 2- to 4-times higher odds of having an abdominal hysterectomy compared with patients with commercial insurance.⁴ Evidently, insurance and payer status and hospital, along with race, were associated with abdominal hysterectomy.

Postop complications higher among Black women. One study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2015 hysterectomy database found that Black women were more likely to undergo open hysterectomy than White women despite controlling for patient factors associated with open hysterectomy, including uterine weight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85–2.20).⁵ Black women also were more likely to develop both minor and major postoperative complications despite controlling for route of hysterectomy (major complications aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25–1.95 and minor complications aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11–1.47). Their study was limited by inability to control for surgeon volume and experience and hospital-specific factors.⁵

Hospital size and surgeon volume found to play a role in disparities. In an effort to address hospital and surgeon factors and racial disparities in minimally invasive hysterectomy, Mehta and colleagues evaluated an all payer system in Maryland. Black (reference White; aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78) and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.80) were less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy. Patients who had surgery at small- and medium-sized hospitals or by medium-volume surgeons (medium vs high volume: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71–0.87) were also more likely to undergo open hysterectomy.⁶ The study authors suggest increased utilization of higher volume surgeons for referrals or to assist lower-volume surgeons as potential solutions to address racial disparities.⁶

Continue to: Surgical outcome disparities extend beyond hysterectomy route...

While the bulk of data with regard to gynecologic surgery and racism addresses minimally invasive approach to treatment of fibroids and hysterectomy, limited data regarding ectopic pregnancy and adnexal surgery reveal similar findings. Hsu and colleagues reported that Black (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69–0.85) and Hispanic (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.96) women treated surgically for ectopic pregnancy were less likely to undergo tubal-sparing procedures than White women.⁷ Their study did not control for human chorionic gonadotropin levels, ectopic size, or comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

The data regarding gynecologic surgery and racial inequity are sparse but manifest differences that are unexplained entirely by patient payer status and individual patient factors. Studies do confirm hospital and surgeon characteristics play a part in provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy.

Forming a conceptual re-framework to achieve health equity

The centuries-long impact of racism on our field, and more specifically on gynecologic surgery, will take time and a conscious effort to overcome. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine outlined 6 domains for improvement, amongst them equitable care—“ensuring quality of care does not vary because of characteristics.”⁸ As highlighted above, some aspects of gynecologic surgery have proven to be inequitable, specifically in the provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy and treatment of ectopic pregnancy in Black women. The lack of studies on racism and gynecologic surgery as it pertains to other benign gynecologic conditions highlights the need for more research and measures that target each level of racism and, ultimately, achieve health equity.

Priority #1: Support and funding. In 2016, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) published a white paper describing a framework to bring about health equity. First and foremost, institutions and individuals must prioritize health equity by obtaining leadership support and adequate funding.⁹ In August 2020, several leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations published a joint statement highlighting their initial plan of action to address racism and provide equitable care.¹⁰ As leading professional organizations prioritize equity, we can hope institutions and departments continue to do so as well.

Priority #2: Measuring the extent of the problem. Once adequate support and funding is established, the IHI recommends⁹:

• establishing structures and processes with an overseeing committee and dedicated budget
• deploying strategies with comprehensive data collection and pertinent metrics.

Continue to: Applying the levels of racism to a new framework...

Given the numerous untouched areas of research and components contributing to racial disparities in gynecologic surgery, determining a starting point can prove overwhelming. We suggest employing a conceptual framework that considers the different levels of racism (TABLE 1).

Three different levels of racism have been described previously:

• systemic/institutionalized,
• personally mediated
• internalized.^11,12

Systemic racism refers to differential access to services and goods in society and power within society, for example housing, education, medical care, and voting and representation.¹² Systemic racism is arguably the overarching form of racism. The studies by Mehta and colleagues and Pollack et al specifically highlight a lack of adequate access to minimally invasive hysterectomy and a subsequent increase in complication rates in minority race groups.^3,13 Access to care is only one example of systemic racism that requires action at multiple levels by professional organizations, hospitals, community organizations, and individual departments with multiple targeted solutions (TABLE 2).

Mediated racism. The second form of racism is personally mediated racism, in other words discrimination and prejudice formed by preconceived notions of a person based on their race.¹² In the joint statement published by the leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations in August 2020, a recognition of race as a social construct without the biological weight we have long afforded it was made explicit. This realization can be applied in the day-to-day categorization of patients and, most notably, the formation of a diagnosis and treatment plan.

A concrete example of potentially biased treatment is illustrated when limiting management options to the “unreliable” patient. Exposure to stereotypes and misinformation can develop into implicit bias and subsequently make the most intelligent, compassionate provider show behavior with microaggressions. This subtle behavior can play a major role in patient-provider communication and in turn affect care satisfaction, provider trust, and shared decision making.¹⁴ The Implicit bias Association Test or MPathic-VR virtual human simulations can be used to identify provider-specific implicit bias.^14,15

Internalized racism. Lastly, internalized racism refers to the individual’s acceptance of negative messages regarding their own abilities and worth,¹² which is seen commonly in imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome, which is a failure to internalize one’s own successes and persistent fear of being discovered as a fraud, a condition which has been more commonly seen in ethnic minority groups.¹⁶ A patient’s internalized racism can manifest as self-devaluation and helplessness which may make a patient less likely to question their treatment.^12,17 Moreover, some evidence exists indicating that patients with diabetes identified physician discrimination and internalized racism as factors impeding shared decision making.¹⁸

The next steps first require recognition

Racial inequity has long infiltrated our medical field and the discussion surrounding the effects of racism on our patients and providers, and research, is long overdue. Although research continues to emerge regarding race inequity and gynecologic surgery, much remains to be done. In recognizing the levels of racism and the roles they play in our provision of good, equitable, patient-centered care, we—as individuals, departments, and organizations—can combat racism and strive for health equity. ●

Although recent events have spurred much discourse regarding systemic racism, the issue of racism is old, very old. Unfortunately, our gynecologic surgery history is rooted in racism, with numerous documented procedures performed on enslaved women without their consent. Over the years, racism has continued to permeate gynecologic surgery in so far as access to quality care, patient outcomes, and inclusion in research. While racial disparities with regard to stage at diagnosis and survival of gynecologic malignancy has been documented, this discussion is outside the scope of this article.

Racial disparities in gyn surgery: The evidence

More data exist with regard to hysterectomy and racism than with any other gynecologic surgery. Most notably, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is less likely to occur for minority women, even in universally insured patient populations and when controlling for factors predisposing patients to an abdominal approach.

Minority women undergo MIS for hysterectomy less often

Ranjit and colleagues assessed hysterectomy data between 2006 and 2010 from National TRICARE Prime and Prime Plus data to evaluate if racial differences existed in a universally insured population of US Armed Services members and their dependents. African American patients were significantly less likely than White patients to undergo a total vaginal hysterectomy (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.69) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60–0.71) compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Asian patients were also less likely to receive the vaginal (RRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60–0.84) or laparoscopic (RRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58–0.83) approach to hysterectomy than White patients.¹ These findings remained when controlled for surgery indication, suggesting that racial inequity was not attributed solely to preoperative patient factors. However, the authors could not control for specific patient factors such as body mass index and uterine weight.

Katon and colleagues reviewed data on patients who underwent hysterectomy for uterine fibroids at a Veterans Affairs hospital and found 99 excess abdominal hysterectomies were performed among Black women compared with White women. Despite controlling for predisposing factors related to abdominal surgery, facility, and geography (teaching hospital, higher volume hysterectomy), Black women were still less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy.² The difference in approach between both groups remained largely unexplained.²

Pollack and colleagues reviewed hysterectomy data from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery Databases between 2010 and 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. They found that African American and Hispanic women were less likely to undergo vaginal (adjusted standardized prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90–0.96 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93−0.97, respectively) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87−0.94 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92−0.98, respectively) than White women. Asian/Pacific Islander women were less likely to undergo vaginal hysterectomy (aPR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81−0.96). They also found that hospitals providing care to more racial/ethnic minority women performed more abdominal and fewer vaginal procedures compared with other hospitals.³

Sanei-Moghaddam and colleagues reviewed data from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center–affiliated hospitals and found that European-American women had 0.47 times lower odds of undergoing abdominal hysterectomy compared with ethnic/race minority group women. Also, traditional Medicaid and Medicare enrollees had 2- to 4-times higher odds of having an abdominal hysterectomy compared with patients with commercial insurance.⁴ Evidently, insurance and payer status and hospital, along with race, were associated with abdominal hysterectomy.

Postop complications higher among Black women. One study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2015 hysterectomy database found that Black women were more likely to undergo open hysterectomy than White women despite controlling for patient factors associated with open hysterectomy, including uterine weight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85–2.20).⁵ Black women also were more likely to develop both minor and major postoperative complications despite controlling for route of hysterectomy (major complications aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25–1.95 and minor complications aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11–1.47). Their study was limited by inability to control for surgeon volume and experience and hospital-specific factors.⁵

Hospital size and surgeon volume found to play a role in disparities. In an effort to address hospital and surgeon factors and racial disparities in minimally invasive hysterectomy, Mehta and colleagues evaluated an all payer system in Maryland. Black (reference White; aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78) and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.80) were less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy. Patients who had surgery at small- and medium-sized hospitals or by medium-volume surgeons (medium vs high volume: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71–0.87) were also more likely to undergo open hysterectomy.⁶ The study authors suggest increased utilization of higher volume surgeons for referrals or to assist lower-volume surgeons as potential solutions to address racial disparities.⁶

Continue to: Surgical outcome disparities extend beyond hysterectomy route...

While the bulk of data with regard to gynecologic surgery and racism addresses minimally invasive approach to treatment of fibroids and hysterectomy, limited data regarding ectopic pregnancy and adnexal surgery reveal similar findings. Hsu and colleagues reported that Black (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69–0.85) and Hispanic (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.96) women treated surgically for ectopic pregnancy were less likely to undergo tubal-sparing procedures than White women.⁷ Their study did not control for human chorionic gonadotropin levels, ectopic size, or comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

The data regarding gynecologic surgery and racial inequity are sparse but manifest differences that are unexplained entirely by patient payer status and individual patient factors. Studies do confirm hospital and surgeon characteristics play a part in provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy.

Forming a conceptual re-framework to achieve health equity

The centuries-long impact of racism on our field, and more specifically on gynecologic surgery, will take time and a conscious effort to overcome. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine outlined 6 domains for improvement, amongst them equitable care—“ensuring quality of care does not vary because of characteristics.”⁸ As highlighted above, some aspects of gynecologic surgery have proven to be inequitable, specifically in the provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy and treatment of ectopic pregnancy in Black women. The lack of studies on racism and gynecologic surgery as it pertains to other benign gynecologic conditions highlights the need for more research and measures that target each level of racism and, ultimately, achieve health equity.

Priority #1: Support and funding. In 2016, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) published a white paper describing a framework to bring about health equity. First and foremost, institutions and individuals must prioritize health equity by obtaining leadership support and adequate funding.⁹ In August 2020, several leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations published a joint statement highlighting their initial plan of action to address racism and provide equitable care.¹⁰ As leading professional organizations prioritize equity, we can hope institutions and departments continue to do so as well.

Priority #2: Measuring the extent of the problem. Once adequate support and funding is established, the IHI recommends⁹:

• establishing structures and processes with an overseeing committee and dedicated budget
• deploying strategies with comprehensive data collection and pertinent metrics.

Continue to: Applying the levels of racism to a new framework...

Given the numerous untouched areas of research and components contributing to racial disparities in gynecologic surgery, determining a starting point can prove overwhelming. We suggest employing a conceptual framework that considers the different levels of racism (TABLE 1).

Three different levels of racism have been described previously:

• systemic/institutionalized,
• personally mediated
• internalized.^11,12

Systemic racism refers to differential access to services and goods in society and power within society, for example housing, education, medical care, and voting and representation.¹² Systemic racism is arguably the overarching form of racism. The studies by Mehta and colleagues and Pollack et al specifically highlight a lack of adequate access to minimally invasive hysterectomy and a subsequent increase in complication rates in minority race groups.^3,13 Access to care is only one example of systemic racism that requires action at multiple levels by professional organizations, hospitals, community organizations, and individual departments with multiple targeted solutions (TABLE 2).

Mediated racism. The second form of racism is personally mediated racism, in other words discrimination and prejudice formed by preconceived notions of a person based on their race.¹² In the joint statement published by the leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations in August 2020, a recognition of race as a social construct without the biological weight we have long afforded it was made explicit. This realization can be applied in the day-to-day categorization of patients and, most notably, the formation of a diagnosis and treatment plan.

A concrete example of potentially biased treatment is illustrated when limiting management options to the “unreliable” patient. Exposure to stereotypes and misinformation can develop into implicit bias and subsequently make the most intelligent, compassionate provider show behavior with microaggressions. This subtle behavior can play a major role in patient-provider communication and in turn affect care satisfaction, provider trust, and shared decision making.¹⁴ The Implicit bias Association Test or MPathic-VR virtual human simulations can be used to identify provider-specific implicit bias.^14,15

Internalized racism. Lastly, internalized racism refers to the individual’s acceptance of negative messages regarding their own abilities and worth,¹² which is seen commonly in imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome, which is a failure to internalize one’s own successes and persistent fear of being discovered as a fraud, a condition which has been more commonly seen in ethnic minority groups.¹⁶ A patient’s internalized racism can manifest as self-devaluation and helplessness which may make a patient less likely to question their treatment.^12,17 Moreover, some evidence exists indicating that patients with diabetes identified physician discrimination and internalized racism as factors impeding shared decision making.¹⁸

The next steps first require recognition

Racial inequity has long infiltrated our medical field and the discussion surrounding the effects of racism on our patients and providers, and research, is long overdue. Although research continues to emerge regarding race inequity and gynecologic surgery, much remains to be done. In recognizing the levels of racism and the roles they play in our provision of good, equitable, patient-centered care, we—as individuals, departments, and organizations—can combat racism and strive for health equity. ●

Although recent events have spurred much discourse regarding systemic racism, the issue of racism is old, very old. Unfortunately, our gynecologic surgery history is rooted in racism, with numerous documented procedures performed on enslaved women without their consent. Over the years, racism has continued to permeate gynecologic surgery in so far as access to quality care, patient outcomes, and inclusion in research. While racial disparities with regard to stage at diagnosis and survival of gynecologic malignancy has been documented, this discussion is outside the scope of this article.

Racial disparities in gyn surgery: The evidence

More data exist with regard to hysterectomy and racism than with any other gynecologic surgery. Most notably, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is less likely to occur for minority women, even in universally insured patient populations and when controlling for factors predisposing patients to an abdominal approach.

Minority women undergo MIS for hysterectomy less often

Ranjit and colleagues assessed hysterectomy data between 2006 and 2010 from National TRICARE Prime and Prime Plus data to evaluate if racial differences existed in a universally insured population of US Armed Services members and their dependents. African American patients were significantly less likely than White patients to undergo a total vaginal hysterectomy (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.69) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60–0.71) compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Asian patients were also less likely to receive the vaginal (RRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60–0.84) or laparoscopic (RRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58–0.83) approach to hysterectomy than White patients.¹ These findings remained when controlled for surgery indication, suggesting that racial inequity was not attributed solely to preoperative patient factors. However, the authors could not control for specific patient factors such as body mass index and uterine weight.

Katon and colleagues reviewed data on patients who underwent hysterectomy for uterine fibroids at a Veterans Affairs hospital and found 99 excess abdominal hysterectomies were performed among Black women compared with White women. Despite controlling for predisposing factors related to abdominal surgery, facility, and geography (teaching hospital, higher volume hysterectomy), Black women were still less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy.² The difference in approach between both groups remained largely unexplained.²

Pollack and colleagues reviewed hysterectomy data from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery Databases between 2010 and 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. They found that African American and Hispanic women were less likely to undergo vaginal (adjusted standardized prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90–0.96 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93−0.97, respectively) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87−0.94 and aPR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92−0.98, respectively) than White women. Asian/Pacific Islander women were less likely to undergo vaginal hysterectomy (aPR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81−0.96). They also found that hospitals providing care to more racial/ethnic minority women performed more abdominal and fewer vaginal procedures compared with other hospitals.³

Sanei-Moghaddam and colleagues reviewed data from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center–affiliated hospitals and found that European-American women had 0.47 times lower odds of undergoing abdominal hysterectomy compared with ethnic/race minority group women. Also, traditional Medicaid and Medicare enrollees had 2- to 4-times higher odds of having an abdominal hysterectomy compared with patients with commercial insurance.⁴ Evidently, insurance and payer status and hospital, along with race, were associated with abdominal hysterectomy.

Postop complications higher among Black women. One study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2015 hysterectomy database found that Black women were more likely to undergo open hysterectomy than White women despite controlling for patient factors associated with open hysterectomy, including uterine weight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85–2.20).⁵ Black women also were more likely to develop both minor and major postoperative complications despite controlling for route of hysterectomy (major complications aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25–1.95 and minor complications aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11–1.47). Their study was limited by inability to control for surgeon volume and experience and hospital-specific factors.⁵

Hospital size and surgeon volume found to play a role in disparities. In an effort to address hospital and surgeon factors and racial disparities in minimally invasive hysterectomy, Mehta and colleagues evaluated an all payer system in Maryland. Black (reference White; aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78) and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.80) were less likely to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy. Patients who had surgery at small- and medium-sized hospitals or by medium-volume surgeons (medium vs high volume: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71–0.87) were also more likely to undergo open hysterectomy.⁶ The study authors suggest increased utilization of higher volume surgeons for referrals or to assist lower-volume surgeons as potential solutions to address racial disparities.⁶

Continue to: Surgical outcome disparities extend beyond hysterectomy route...

While the bulk of data with regard to gynecologic surgery and racism addresses minimally invasive approach to treatment of fibroids and hysterectomy, limited data regarding ectopic pregnancy and adnexal surgery reveal similar findings. Hsu and colleagues reported that Black (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69–0.85) and Hispanic (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.96) women treated surgically for ectopic pregnancy were less likely to undergo tubal-sparing procedures than White women.⁷ Their study did not control for human chorionic gonadotropin levels, ectopic size, or comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

The data regarding gynecologic surgery and racial inequity are sparse but manifest differences that are unexplained entirely by patient payer status and individual patient factors. Studies do confirm hospital and surgeon characteristics play a part in provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy.

Forming a conceptual re-framework to achieve health equity

The centuries-long impact of racism on our field, and more specifically on gynecologic surgery, will take time and a conscious effort to overcome. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine outlined 6 domains for improvement, amongst them equitable care—“ensuring quality of care does not vary because of characteristics.”⁸ As highlighted above, some aspects of gynecologic surgery have proven to be inequitable, specifically in the provision of minimally invasive hysterectomy and treatment of ectopic pregnancy in Black women. The lack of studies on racism and gynecologic surgery as it pertains to other benign gynecologic conditions highlights the need for more research and measures that target each level of racism and, ultimately, achieve health equity.

Priority #1: Support and funding. In 2016, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) published a white paper describing a framework to bring about health equity. First and foremost, institutions and individuals must prioritize health equity by obtaining leadership support and adequate funding.⁹ In August 2020, several leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations published a joint statement highlighting their initial plan of action to address racism and provide equitable care.¹⁰ As leading professional organizations prioritize equity, we can hope institutions and departments continue to do so as well.

Priority #2: Measuring the extent of the problem. Once adequate support and funding is established, the IHI recommends⁹:

• establishing structures and processes with an overseeing committee and dedicated budget
• deploying strategies with comprehensive data collection and pertinent metrics.

Continue to: Applying the levels of racism to a new framework...

Given the numerous untouched areas of research and components contributing to racial disparities in gynecologic surgery, determining a starting point can prove overwhelming. We suggest employing a conceptual framework that considers the different levels of racism (TABLE 1).

Three different levels of racism have been described previously:

• systemic/institutionalized,
• personally mediated
• internalized.^11,12

Systemic racism refers to differential access to services and goods in society and power within society, for example housing, education, medical care, and voting and representation.¹² Systemic racism is arguably the overarching form of racism. The studies by Mehta and colleagues and Pollack et al specifically highlight a lack of adequate access to minimally invasive hysterectomy and a subsequent increase in complication rates in minority race groups.^3,13 Access to care is only one example of systemic racism that requires action at multiple levels by professional organizations, hospitals, community organizations, and individual departments with multiple targeted solutions (TABLE 2).

Mediated racism. The second form of racism is personally mediated racism, in other words discrimination and prejudice formed by preconceived notions of a person based on their race.¹² In the joint statement published by the leading obstetrics and gynecology organizations in August 2020, a recognition of race as a social construct without the biological weight we have long afforded it was made explicit. This realization can be applied in the day-to-day categorization of patients and, most notably, the formation of a diagnosis and treatment plan.

A concrete example of potentially biased treatment is illustrated when limiting management options to the “unreliable” patient. Exposure to stereotypes and misinformation can develop into implicit bias and subsequently make the most intelligent, compassionate provider show behavior with microaggressions. This subtle behavior can play a major role in patient-provider communication and in turn affect care satisfaction, provider trust, and shared decision making.¹⁴ The Implicit bias Association Test or MPathic-VR virtual human simulations can be used to identify provider-specific implicit bias.^14,15

Internalized racism. Lastly, internalized racism refers to the individual’s acceptance of negative messages regarding their own abilities and worth,¹² which is seen commonly in imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome, which is a failure to internalize one’s own successes and persistent fear of being discovered as a fraud, a condition which has been more commonly seen in ethnic minority groups.¹⁶ A patient’s internalized racism can manifest as self-devaluation and helplessness which may make a patient less likely to question their treatment.^12,17 Moreover, some evidence exists indicating that patients with diabetes identified physician discrimination and internalized racism as factors impeding shared decision making.¹⁸

The next steps first require recognition

Racial inequity has long infiltrated our medical field and the discussion surrounding the effects of racism on our patients and providers, and research, is long overdue. Although research continues to emerge regarding race inequity and gynecologic surgery, much remains to be done. In recognizing the levels of racism and the roles they play in our provision of good, equitable, patient-centered care, we—as individuals, departments, and organizations—can combat racism and strive for health equity. ●

Practicing evidence-based medicine, as obstetricians know, is not always possible when one does not have evidence due to lack of data or long-term experience in pregnancy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the evidence changed so rapidly that we were compelled to alter our strategy frequently as we learned more about the impact of this disease on our vulnerable patient population. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that, in unprecedented times, centering the safety of the patient, her child, and the health care team requires quick thinking, flexibility, and above all effective communication between team members.

Here, I share our institutional experience in providing practical obstetric care through various stages of the still-evolving COVID-19 pandemic. We based our strategy on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),^1,2 and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM).^3-5 We were reminded yet again that the only constant is change and that timely but thoughtful adjustments were needed to keep up with the coronavirus.

Changes to prenatal care

Like many others, our institution has provided continued in-person outpatient prenatal care to both our low- and high-risk patients throughout each stage of the pandemic. While continuing to provide the necessary obstetric care, we made alterations to limit exposure and practice social distancing when possible.

Limiting patient support persons. One significant change was to restrict or limit support persons in the outpatient clinics based on guidelines reflecting community infection rates. Recognizing that this was not optimal for our patients’ emotional well-being, we needed to become more flexible in using technology to include family or support persons in prenatal visits and ultrasonography exams.

Altering test frequency. Using the guidance from SMFM,¹ we changed the frequency of our antenatal testing and ultrasonography exams in the following ways: We increased the duration between indicated growth ultrasonography to every 4 weeks and decreased fetal antenatal testing to weekly, with twice-weekly testing continued for the highest-risk patients. Early first-trimester ultrasonography exams were limited and, when possible, delayed until after 10 to 12 weeks’ gestation or combined with other indications (nuchal translucency). Prenatal visits for low-risk patients were spaced out using existing models if the patient was amenable, especially in early pregnancy.

Adjusting staff assignments and using telehealth. In the early part of the pandemic, we divided into 2 groups to limit the number of clinicians at any one site: a dedicated group of outpatient clinicians who saw patients in the clinic only and a dedicated group of inpatient clinicians who staffed labor and delivery and the inpatient antepartum service. Additionally, our consultative maternal-fetal medicine service transitioned to a telehealth platform and performed the majority of consults remotely. Ultrasonography exams at various sites were read remotely and pertinent findings were communicated directly to patients via phone or the telehealth platform. Amniocentesis continued to be offered.

Responding to lower COVID-19 case numbers. When the number of COVID-19 cases decreased in the summer and fall of 2020, we returned to our prepandemic in-person practices, but we continued to offer telehealth visits as an option for patients who desired it. Patients were limited to one support person.

Shifting gears again. During the second surge of COVID-19 in our region, we used our experiences from the first to transition our practices to reduce in-person contact. Appointment frequency was decreased if appropriate, and we developed a tiered system of antenatal testing frequency based on risk factors. Visitors were again restricted, with exceptions made for extenuating circumstances. Consults were transitioned to telemedicine as appropriate and ultrasonography exams were read remotely when possible to limit exposures. Given the varied experiences with telemedicine and patient preferences, patients who desired in-person consult were (and are still) offered this option.

Some patients who were interested in telehealth but unable to access the technology were offered appointments via telehealth with the use of our clinic devices. Telemedicine increased our flexibility in offering consults as one provider could see patients at different office sites in one session. We continued our routine inpatient and outpatient coverage during this time as this kept our coverage options more flexible and expanded our obstetric backup plan in response to increased rates of community infection that affected both clinicians and patients.

Coordinating care for infected patients. One vital part of our prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic was to coordinate with our colleagues in medical specialties to provide outpatient care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during their period of isolation or quarantine. Patients could be seen as outpatients in a dedicated space that used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for not only prenatal care but also any needed in-person evaluation for COVID-19. Our obstetric clinicians and sonographers performed exams, antenatal testing (in the form of biophysical profiles), and indicated ultrasonography exams (such as umbilical artery Doppler studies and fetal growth assessments). This required a concerted effort and excellent communication between teams to provide the necessary care in the safest manner possible.

Continue to: Universal testing on labor and delivery...

Not surprisingly, obstetric delivery volumes in our institution were not affected in the same way as elective surgery volumes. Our inpatient team continued to bring babies into the world at the same if not a higher rate than in prepandemic times. We continued elective inductions when space allowed. Our first COVID-19–positive patient was already at 40 weeks’ gestation when the result of her test, done due to exposure, was received. Creative effort among multiple specialties quickly developed her delivery plan, and she and her infant did well.

As data started coming out of the New York City obstetric experience, concern for preservation of the PPE supply and the potential for asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients led us, in consultation with our infectious disease colleagues, to institute universal testing for all antepartum and laboring patients. At first, all patients were tested on admission with our rapid in-house test. Eventually, we moved toward preoperative testing 3 to 5 days prior to scheduled cesarean deliveries in alignment with the surgical services when elective cases were reinstituted. Finally, we instituted preprocedure testing for all scheduled labor and delivery procedures, including inductions, cerclages, and fetal blood transfusions, while we still used rapid testing for patients who presented urgently or in labor.

We needed to address several considerations almost immediately after instituting universal testing, including:

• what to do in case of patient refusal to be tested
• which precautions to institute while awaiting test results
• potential postponement of elective delivery if a patient tested positive, and
• where best to deliver patients.

What we did at the beginning of the pandemic was not necessarily the same as we do in our current practice, and we expect that our procedures may need to change in the future. Derived from what we learned from others’ experience, we tailored our protocols to our own physical space, staffing capabilities, and testing limitations. We adjusted them often, with input from multiple services, based on updated policy, recommendation for isolation and quarantine durations, rates of community infection, and changes in the unit spaces. As with many things, one protocol did not fit every patient, necessitating case-by-case flexibility.

Delivery considerations

To answer some of the above questions, all patients who declined testing, were awaiting test results while in labor, or were in triage were placed in droplet and contact isolation on our unit, a practice we continue currently. Given the concern of potential aerosolization during the second stage of labor or during intubation, for any patients in those categories who required delivery, we limited the number of staff in their rooms as possible. Additional pediatric staff waited in close proximity of the room and were ready to come in if needed depending on fetal complications and gestational age. For delivery, all team members used full special pathogens precautions (N95 masks, face shields, gowns, and gloves).

Patients who were asymptomatic and tested negative for COVID-19 had and continue to have routine care from a PPE (standard gowns, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and health care team perspective. We have allowed visitation of one support person per hospital stay for these patients throughout the pandemic.

For the majority of our experience during the pandemic, adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were cohorted within dedicated negative pressure units of varying levels of care. As these units included the same intensive care unit (ICU) we utilized in non-COVID times for critical obstetric patients, we had already operationalized their use and they were wired for our electronic fetal monitoring system. These rooms are adjacent to the main operating room (OR) complex, which allows for transition to a dedicated COVID-19 OR for cesarean delivery. We worked with the primary COVID-19 team, ICU team, anesthesia, and neonatal ICU team to develop a written protocol that detailed the care for our COVID-19–positive laboring and postpartum patients in this critical care COVID-19 unit.

For a time, admitted COVID-19–positive patients were not permitted to have support persons. The health care team therefore stepped in to be the patients’ support during the delivery of their child. Care of these patients required a great deal of coordination and communication between teams as well as the addition of a dedicated obstetric physician—separate from the regular labor and delivery team—assigned to care for these patients.

For pregnant patients in the emergency room or in the intermediate or floor COVID-19 units, portable fetal monitors and ultrasonography equipment were used for obstetric consults, fetal testing, and obstetrical ultrasonography as appropriate based on gestational age and medical conditions. Again, communication between teams was essential to provide seamless and timely patient care. Patients usually were admitted to the COVID-19 teams with maternal-fetal medicine or obstetric consult teams following daily; they were admitted and transferred to the ICU COVID-19 unit if delivery was necessary. To limit exposures whenever possible, coordinated care (such as exams and telephone evaluation) was performed outside of the room with the nursing and primary teams.

Continue to: Staying flexible to the changing COVID-19 environment...

Postponed in-person visits. Whenever possible, deliveries that were not medically indicated and in-person outpatient care visits were postponed until isolation/quarantine precautions could be lifted to avoid the need for special pathogens precautions, separation of mother and infant, and visitor restrictions. We did not postpone any medically indicated deliveries or appropriate care due to COVID-19 alone. As the CDC guidelines changed regarding the timing of infectivity, we had to continually re-evaluate when a patient could return to regular outpatient care instead of the COVID-19 clinic and/or be delivered.

Mother-infant separation. As outlined in an article we wrote with our pediatric colleagues, originally all infants were immediately separated from their COVID-19–positive mothers, and delayed cord clamping was not performed.⁶ We adjusted our protocols as experience and data grew regarding the risk of transmission to the newborn from asymptomatic mothers and as updated recommendations were made by ACOG and the CDC. Currently, if desired, asymptomatic mothers are not separated from their well term infants. We practice our standard delayed cord clamping technique for all patients. Masking, hand hygiene, and physical distancing are used to reduce the risk of infection transmission. Breastfeeding is encouraged if the patient desires it, either directly using precautions or supported via pumping.

Reduced workplace exposure. Along with many others, we are even more cognizant of reducing the risk of workplace exposure; thus, we conduct our daily multidisciplinary huddle and physician transition of care sign-outs. We use multiple rooms for our larger group with secure video chats, and we limit huddles to a single representative from each specialty.

Medication protocols. Early in the pandemic in our area, we limited antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturity to patients who were at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, per ACOG recommendations, carefully considering necessity in the critically ill. Now, we continue to administer antenatal steroids according to our usual protocols up to 36 6/7 weeks, per ACOG and SMFM recommendations, regardless of illness severity.⁷ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, once limited in COVID-19–positive patients, are now used again. Additionally, we had a comprehensive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis protocol for our obstetric patients, and we have added special consideration for prophylaxis for patients with moderate to severe illness or other VTE risk factors. While we do not perform routine circumcisions on infants of COVID-19–positive mothers, we have a process in place to provide that service after discharge when isolation precautions are lifted.

Labor accommodations. As COVID-19 cases increased in our hospital during recent months, we made one more significant change in our care protocols. To open up space in the ICU, we moved our care for asymptomatic COVID-19–positive laboring patients to our new labor and delivery unit with implemented special pathogens precautions. This is not revolutionary; many other hospitals did not have the same capability we did with our existing collaboration with the ICU for critical obstetric care. However, this change again required communication and collaboration among multiple care teams, agreement on the qualifications for delivery on labor and delivery versus in the ICU, and physical alteration of our unit to accommodate additional isolation precautions.

Visitor policy. Another change is that we have opened up the visitor policy to welcome an asymptomatic support person for the COVID-19–positive labor patient, giving special attention to adherence to isolation precautions. Our staff members have embraced this change as they have everything else, with cautious optimism and focus on keeping both the patients and the health care team safe. Our moderate to severely ill patients continue to be cared for in the COVID-19 unit in close collaboration with our infectious disease and ICU colleagues.

It’s all about teamwork

I hope I have given a clear example of our approach to providing obstetric care in the ever-changing landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic. We embraced this period of necessary change as practically and safely as possible for both our patients and our health care workers. We learned multiple times along the way that what seemed to be a good idea was not feasible, or not the ideal option, or that COVID-19 had changed the rules of the game again. Our team met daily if not more frequently, as we found we had to constantly adapt and change to each new challenge or new clinical scenario. When we struggled, it generally related to a gap in communication.

I am privileged to work with a dedicated, selfless, multidisciplinary team that rose to the occasion. They had the focused goal to provide the highest quality and safety in obstetric care while offering compassion and empathy for the experience of having a baby during a pandemic. ●

The author would like to acknowledge Danielle Prentice, DO, and Jaimie Maines, MD, for their manuscript review.

Practicing evidence-based medicine, as obstetricians know, is not always possible when one does not have evidence due to lack of data or long-term experience in pregnancy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the evidence changed so rapidly that we were compelled to alter our strategy frequently as we learned more about the impact of this disease on our vulnerable patient population. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that, in unprecedented times, centering the safety of the patient, her child, and the health care team requires quick thinking, flexibility, and above all effective communication between team members.

Here, I share our institutional experience in providing practical obstetric care through various stages of the still-evolving COVID-19 pandemic. We based our strategy on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),^1,2 and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM).^3-5 We were reminded yet again that the only constant is change and that timely but thoughtful adjustments were needed to keep up with the coronavirus.

Changes to prenatal care

Like many others, our institution has provided continued in-person outpatient prenatal care to both our low- and high-risk patients throughout each stage of the pandemic. While continuing to provide the necessary obstetric care, we made alterations to limit exposure and practice social distancing when possible.

Limiting patient support persons. One significant change was to restrict or limit support persons in the outpatient clinics based on guidelines reflecting community infection rates. Recognizing that this was not optimal for our patients’ emotional well-being, we needed to become more flexible in using technology to include family or support persons in prenatal visits and ultrasonography exams.

Altering test frequency. Using the guidance from SMFM,¹ we changed the frequency of our antenatal testing and ultrasonography exams in the following ways: We increased the duration between indicated growth ultrasonography to every 4 weeks and decreased fetal antenatal testing to weekly, with twice-weekly testing continued for the highest-risk patients. Early first-trimester ultrasonography exams were limited and, when possible, delayed until after 10 to 12 weeks’ gestation or combined with other indications (nuchal translucency). Prenatal visits for low-risk patients were spaced out using existing models if the patient was amenable, especially in early pregnancy.

Adjusting staff assignments and using telehealth. In the early part of the pandemic, we divided into 2 groups to limit the number of clinicians at any one site: a dedicated group of outpatient clinicians who saw patients in the clinic only and a dedicated group of inpatient clinicians who staffed labor and delivery and the inpatient antepartum service. Additionally, our consultative maternal-fetal medicine service transitioned to a telehealth platform and performed the majority of consults remotely. Ultrasonography exams at various sites were read remotely and pertinent findings were communicated directly to patients via phone or the telehealth platform. Amniocentesis continued to be offered.

Responding to lower COVID-19 case numbers. When the number of COVID-19 cases decreased in the summer and fall of 2020, we returned to our prepandemic in-person practices, but we continued to offer telehealth visits as an option for patients who desired it. Patients were limited to one support person.

Shifting gears again. During the second surge of COVID-19 in our region, we used our experiences from the first to transition our practices to reduce in-person contact. Appointment frequency was decreased if appropriate, and we developed a tiered system of antenatal testing frequency based on risk factors. Visitors were again restricted, with exceptions made for extenuating circumstances. Consults were transitioned to telemedicine as appropriate and ultrasonography exams were read remotely when possible to limit exposures. Given the varied experiences with telemedicine and patient preferences, patients who desired in-person consult were (and are still) offered this option.

Some patients who were interested in telehealth but unable to access the technology were offered appointments via telehealth with the use of our clinic devices. Telemedicine increased our flexibility in offering consults as one provider could see patients at different office sites in one session. We continued our routine inpatient and outpatient coverage during this time as this kept our coverage options more flexible and expanded our obstetric backup plan in response to increased rates of community infection that affected both clinicians and patients.

Coordinating care for infected patients. One vital part of our prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic was to coordinate with our colleagues in medical specialties to provide outpatient care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during their period of isolation or quarantine. Patients could be seen as outpatients in a dedicated space that used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for not only prenatal care but also any needed in-person evaluation for COVID-19. Our obstetric clinicians and sonographers performed exams, antenatal testing (in the form of biophysical profiles), and indicated ultrasonography exams (such as umbilical artery Doppler studies and fetal growth assessments). This required a concerted effort and excellent communication between teams to provide the necessary care in the safest manner possible.

Continue to: Universal testing on labor and delivery...

Not surprisingly, obstetric delivery volumes in our institution were not affected in the same way as elective surgery volumes. Our inpatient team continued to bring babies into the world at the same if not a higher rate than in prepandemic times. We continued elective inductions when space allowed. Our first COVID-19–positive patient was already at 40 weeks’ gestation when the result of her test, done due to exposure, was received. Creative effort among multiple specialties quickly developed her delivery plan, and she and her infant did well.

As data started coming out of the New York City obstetric experience, concern for preservation of the PPE supply and the potential for asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients led us, in consultation with our infectious disease colleagues, to institute universal testing for all antepartum and laboring patients. At first, all patients were tested on admission with our rapid in-house test. Eventually, we moved toward preoperative testing 3 to 5 days prior to scheduled cesarean deliveries in alignment with the surgical services when elective cases were reinstituted. Finally, we instituted preprocedure testing for all scheduled labor and delivery procedures, including inductions, cerclages, and fetal blood transfusions, while we still used rapid testing for patients who presented urgently or in labor.

We needed to address several considerations almost immediately after instituting universal testing, including:

• what to do in case of patient refusal to be tested
• which precautions to institute while awaiting test results
• potential postponement of elective delivery if a patient tested positive, and
• where best to deliver patients.

What we did at the beginning of the pandemic was not necessarily the same as we do in our current practice, and we expect that our procedures may need to change in the future. Derived from what we learned from others’ experience, we tailored our protocols to our own physical space, staffing capabilities, and testing limitations. We adjusted them often, with input from multiple services, based on updated policy, recommendation for isolation and quarantine durations, rates of community infection, and changes in the unit spaces. As with many things, one protocol did not fit every patient, necessitating case-by-case flexibility.

Delivery considerations

To answer some of the above questions, all patients who declined testing, were awaiting test results while in labor, or were in triage were placed in droplet and contact isolation on our unit, a practice we continue currently. Given the concern of potential aerosolization during the second stage of labor or during intubation, for any patients in those categories who required delivery, we limited the number of staff in their rooms as possible. Additional pediatric staff waited in close proximity of the room and were ready to come in if needed depending on fetal complications and gestational age. For delivery, all team members used full special pathogens precautions (N95 masks, face shields, gowns, and gloves).

Patients who were asymptomatic and tested negative for COVID-19 had and continue to have routine care from a PPE (standard gowns, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and health care team perspective. We have allowed visitation of one support person per hospital stay for these patients throughout the pandemic.

For the majority of our experience during the pandemic, adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were cohorted within dedicated negative pressure units of varying levels of care. As these units included the same intensive care unit (ICU) we utilized in non-COVID times for critical obstetric patients, we had already operationalized their use and they were wired for our electronic fetal monitoring system. These rooms are adjacent to the main operating room (OR) complex, which allows for transition to a dedicated COVID-19 OR for cesarean delivery. We worked with the primary COVID-19 team, ICU team, anesthesia, and neonatal ICU team to develop a written protocol that detailed the care for our COVID-19–positive laboring and postpartum patients in this critical care COVID-19 unit.

For a time, admitted COVID-19–positive patients were not permitted to have support persons. The health care team therefore stepped in to be the patients’ support during the delivery of their child. Care of these patients required a great deal of coordination and communication between teams as well as the addition of a dedicated obstetric physician—separate from the regular labor and delivery team—assigned to care for these patients.

For pregnant patients in the emergency room or in the intermediate or floor COVID-19 units, portable fetal monitors and ultrasonography equipment were used for obstetric consults, fetal testing, and obstetrical ultrasonography as appropriate based on gestational age and medical conditions. Again, communication between teams was essential to provide seamless and timely patient care. Patients usually were admitted to the COVID-19 teams with maternal-fetal medicine or obstetric consult teams following daily; they were admitted and transferred to the ICU COVID-19 unit if delivery was necessary. To limit exposures whenever possible, coordinated care (such as exams and telephone evaluation) was performed outside of the room with the nursing and primary teams.

Continue to: Staying flexible to the changing COVID-19 environment...

Postponed in-person visits. Whenever possible, deliveries that were not medically indicated and in-person outpatient care visits were postponed until isolation/quarantine precautions could be lifted to avoid the need for special pathogens precautions, separation of mother and infant, and visitor restrictions. We did not postpone any medically indicated deliveries or appropriate care due to COVID-19 alone. As the CDC guidelines changed regarding the timing of infectivity, we had to continually re-evaluate when a patient could return to regular outpatient care instead of the COVID-19 clinic and/or be delivered.

Mother-infant separation. As outlined in an article we wrote with our pediatric colleagues, originally all infants were immediately separated from their COVID-19–positive mothers, and delayed cord clamping was not performed.⁶ We adjusted our protocols as experience and data grew regarding the risk of transmission to the newborn from asymptomatic mothers and as updated recommendations were made by ACOG and the CDC. Currently, if desired, asymptomatic mothers are not separated from their well term infants. We practice our standard delayed cord clamping technique for all patients. Masking, hand hygiene, and physical distancing are used to reduce the risk of infection transmission. Breastfeeding is encouraged if the patient desires it, either directly using precautions or supported via pumping.

Reduced workplace exposure. Along with many others, we are even more cognizant of reducing the risk of workplace exposure; thus, we conduct our daily multidisciplinary huddle and physician transition of care sign-outs. We use multiple rooms for our larger group with secure video chats, and we limit huddles to a single representative from each specialty.

Medication protocols. Early in the pandemic in our area, we limited antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturity to patients who were at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, per ACOG recommendations, carefully considering necessity in the critically ill. Now, we continue to administer antenatal steroids according to our usual protocols up to 36 6/7 weeks, per ACOG and SMFM recommendations, regardless of illness severity.⁷ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, once limited in COVID-19–positive patients, are now used again. Additionally, we had a comprehensive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis protocol for our obstetric patients, and we have added special consideration for prophylaxis for patients with moderate to severe illness or other VTE risk factors. While we do not perform routine circumcisions on infants of COVID-19–positive mothers, we have a process in place to provide that service after discharge when isolation precautions are lifted.

Labor accommodations. As COVID-19 cases increased in our hospital during recent months, we made one more significant change in our care protocols. To open up space in the ICU, we moved our care for asymptomatic COVID-19–positive laboring patients to our new labor and delivery unit with implemented special pathogens precautions. This is not revolutionary; many other hospitals did not have the same capability we did with our existing collaboration with the ICU for critical obstetric care. However, this change again required communication and collaboration among multiple care teams, agreement on the qualifications for delivery on labor and delivery versus in the ICU, and physical alteration of our unit to accommodate additional isolation precautions.

Visitor policy. Another change is that we have opened up the visitor policy to welcome an asymptomatic support person for the COVID-19–positive labor patient, giving special attention to adherence to isolation precautions. Our staff members have embraced this change as they have everything else, with cautious optimism and focus on keeping both the patients and the health care team safe. Our moderate to severely ill patients continue to be cared for in the COVID-19 unit in close collaboration with our infectious disease and ICU colleagues.

It’s all about teamwork

I hope I have given a clear example of our approach to providing obstetric care in the ever-changing landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic. We embraced this period of necessary change as practically and safely as possible for both our patients and our health care workers. We learned multiple times along the way that what seemed to be a good idea was not feasible, or not the ideal option, or that COVID-19 had changed the rules of the game again. Our team met daily if not more frequently, as we found we had to constantly adapt and change to each new challenge or new clinical scenario. When we struggled, it generally related to a gap in communication.

I am privileged to work with a dedicated, selfless, multidisciplinary team that rose to the occasion. They had the focused goal to provide the highest quality and safety in obstetric care while offering compassion and empathy for the experience of having a baby during a pandemic. ●

The author would like to acknowledge Danielle Prentice, DO, and Jaimie Maines, MD, for their manuscript review.

Practicing evidence-based medicine, as obstetricians know, is not always possible when one does not have evidence due to lack of data or long-term experience in pregnancy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the evidence changed so rapidly that we were compelled to alter our strategy frequently as we learned more about the impact of this disease on our vulnerable patient population. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that, in unprecedented times, centering the safety of the patient, her child, and the health care team requires quick thinking, flexibility, and above all effective communication between team members.

Here, I share our institutional experience in providing practical obstetric care through various stages of the still-evolving COVID-19 pandemic. We based our strategy on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),^1,2 and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM).^3-5 We were reminded yet again that the only constant is change and that timely but thoughtful adjustments were needed to keep up with the coronavirus.

Changes to prenatal care

Like many others, our institution has provided continued in-person outpatient prenatal care to both our low- and high-risk patients throughout each stage of the pandemic. While continuing to provide the necessary obstetric care, we made alterations to limit exposure and practice social distancing when possible.

Limiting patient support persons. One significant change was to restrict or limit support persons in the outpatient clinics based on guidelines reflecting community infection rates. Recognizing that this was not optimal for our patients’ emotional well-being, we needed to become more flexible in using technology to include family or support persons in prenatal visits and ultrasonography exams.

Altering test frequency. Using the guidance from SMFM,¹ we changed the frequency of our antenatal testing and ultrasonography exams in the following ways: We increased the duration between indicated growth ultrasonography to every 4 weeks and decreased fetal antenatal testing to weekly, with twice-weekly testing continued for the highest-risk patients. Early first-trimester ultrasonography exams were limited and, when possible, delayed until after 10 to 12 weeks’ gestation or combined with other indications (nuchal translucency). Prenatal visits for low-risk patients were spaced out using existing models if the patient was amenable, especially in early pregnancy.

Adjusting staff assignments and using telehealth. In the early part of the pandemic, we divided into 2 groups to limit the number of clinicians at any one site: a dedicated group of outpatient clinicians who saw patients in the clinic only and a dedicated group of inpatient clinicians who staffed labor and delivery and the inpatient antepartum service. Additionally, our consultative maternal-fetal medicine service transitioned to a telehealth platform and performed the majority of consults remotely. Ultrasonography exams at various sites were read remotely and pertinent findings were communicated directly to patients via phone or the telehealth platform. Amniocentesis continued to be offered.

Responding to lower COVID-19 case numbers. When the number of COVID-19 cases decreased in the summer and fall of 2020, we returned to our prepandemic in-person practices, but we continued to offer telehealth visits as an option for patients who desired it. Patients were limited to one support person.

Shifting gears again. During the second surge of COVID-19 in our region, we used our experiences from the first to transition our practices to reduce in-person contact. Appointment frequency was decreased if appropriate, and we developed a tiered system of antenatal testing frequency based on risk factors. Visitors were again restricted, with exceptions made for extenuating circumstances. Consults were transitioned to telemedicine as appropriate and ultrasonography exams were read remotely when possible to limit exposures. Given the varied experiences with telemedicine and patient preferences, patients who desired in-person consult were (and are still) offered this option.

Some patients who were interested in telehealth but unable to access the technology were offered appointments via telehealth with the use of our clinic devices. Telemedicine increased our flexibility in offering consults as one provider could see patients at different office sites in one session. We continued our routine inpatient and outpatient coverage during this time as this kept our coverage options more flexible and expanded our obstetric backup plan in response to increased rates of community infection that affected both clinicians and patients.

Coordinating care for infected patients. One vital part of our prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic was to coordinate with our colleagues in medical specialties to provide outpatient care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 during their period of isolation or quarantine. Patients could be seen as outpatients in a dedicated space that used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for not only prenatal care but also any needed in-person evaluation for COVID-19. Our obstetric clinicians and sonographers performed exams, antenatal testing (in the form of biophysical profiles), and indicated ultrasonography exams (such as umbilical artery Doppler studies and fetal growth assessments). This required a concerted effort and excellent communication between teams to provide the necessary care in the safest manner possible.

Continue to: Universal testing on labor and delivery...

Not surprisingly, obstetric delivery volumes in our institution were not affected in the same way as elective surgery volumes. Our inpatient team continued to bring babies into the world at the same if not a higher rate than in prepandemic times. We continued elective inductions when space allowed. Our first COVID-19–positive patient was already at 40 weeks’ gestation when the result of her test, done due to exposure, was received. Creative effort among multiple specialties quickly developed her delivery plan, and she and her infant did well.

As data started coming out of the New York City obstetric experience, concern for preservation of the PPE supply and the potential for asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients led us, in consultation with our infectious disease colleagues, to institute universal testing for all antepartum and laboring patients. At first, all patients were tested on admission with our rapid in-house test. Eventually, we moved toward preoperative testing 3 to 5 days prior to scheduled cesarean deliveries in alignment with the surgical services when elective cases were reinstituted. Finally, we instituted preprocedure testing for all scheduled labor and delivery procedures, including inductions, cerclages, and fetal blood transfusions, while we still used rapid testing for patients who presented urgently or in labor.

We needed to address several considerations almost immediately after instituting universal testing, including:

• what to do in case of patient refusal to be tested
• which precautions to institute while awaiting test results
• potential postponement of elective delivery if a patient tested positive, and
• where best to deliver patients.

What we did at the beginning of the pandemic was not necessarily the same as we do in our current practice, and we expect that our procedures may need to change in the future. Derived from what we learned from others’ experience, we tailored our protocols to our own physical space, staffing capabilities, and testing limitations. We adjusted them often, with input from multiple services, based on updated policy, recommendation for isolation and quarantine durations, rates of community infection, and changes in the unit spaces. As with many things, one protocol did not fit every patient, necessitating case-by-case flexibility.

Delivery considerations

To answer some of the above questions, all patients who declined testing, were awaiting test results while in labor, or were in triage were placed in droplet and contact isolation on our unit, a practice we continue currently. Given the concern of potential aerosolization during the second stage of labor or during intubation, for any patients in those categories who required delivery, we limited the number of staff in their rooms as possible. Additional pediatric staff waited in close proximity of the room and were ready to come in if needed depending on fetal complications and gestational age. For delivery, all team members used full special pathogens precautions (N95 masks, face shields, gowns, and gloves).

Patients who were asymptomatic and tested negative for COVID-19 had and continue to have routine care from a PPE (standard gowns, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and health care team perspective. We have allowed visitation of one support person per hospital stay for these patients throughout the pandemic.

For the majority of our experience during the pandemic, adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were cohorted within dedicated negative pressure units of varying levels of care. As these units included the same intensive care unit (ICU) we utilized in non-COVID times for critical obstetric patients, we had already operationalized their use and they were wired for our electronic fetal monitoring system. These rooms are adjacent to the main operating room (OR) complex, which allows for transition to a dedicated COVID-19 OR for cesarean delivery. We worked with the primary COVID-19 team, ICU team, anesthesia, and neonatal ICU team to develop a written protocol that detailed the care for our COVID-19–positive laboring and postpartum patients in this critical care COVID-19 unit.

For a time, admitted COVID-19–positive patients were not permitted to have support persons. The health care team therefore stepped in to be the patients’ support during the delivery of their child. Care of these patients required a great deal of coordination and communication between teams as well as the addition of a dedicated obstetric physician—separate from the regular labor and delivery team—assigned to care for these patients.

For pregnant patients in the emergency room or in the intermediate or floor COVID-19 units, portable fetal monitors and ultrasonography equipment were used for obstetric consults, fetal testing, and obstetrical ultrasonography as appropriate based on gestational age and medical conditions. Again, communication between teams was essential to provide seamless and timely patient care. Patients usually were admitted to the COVID-19 teams with maternal-fetal medicine or obstetric consult teams following daily; they were admitted and transferred to the ICU COVID-19 unit if delivery was necessary. To limit exposures whenever possible, coordinated care (such as exams and telephone evaluation) was performed outside of the room with the nursing and primary teams.

Continue to: Staying flexible to the changing COVID-19 environment...

Postponed in-person visits. Whenever possible, deliveries that were not medically indicated and in-person outpatient care visits were postponed until isolation/quarantine precautions could be lifted to avoid the need for special pathogens precautions, separation of mother and infant, and visitor restrictions. We did not postpone any medically indicated deliveries or appropriate care due to COVID-19 alone. As the CDC guidelines changed regarding the timing of infectivity, we had to continually re-evaluate when a patient could return to regular outpatient care instead of the COVID-19 clinic and/or be delivered.

Mother-infant separation. As outlined in an article we wrote with our pediatric colleagues, originally all infants were immediately separated from their COVID-19–positive mothers, and delayed cord clamping was not performed.⁶ We adjusted our protocols as experience and data grew regarding the risk of transmission to the newborn from asymptomatic mothers and as updated recommendations were made by ACOG and the CDC. Currently, if desired, asymptomatic mothers are not separated from their well term infants. We practice our standard delayed cord clamping technique for all patients. Masking, hand hygiene, and physical distancing are used to reduce the risk of infection transmission. Breastfeeding is encouraged if the patient desires it, either directly using precautions or supported via pumping.

Reduced workplace exposure. Along with many others, we are even more cognizant of reducing the risk of workplace exposure; thus, we conduct our daily multidisciplinary huddle and physician transition of care sign-outs. We use multiple rooms for our larger group with secure video chats, and we limit huddles to a single representative from each specialty.

Medication protocols. Early in the pandemic in our area, we limited antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturity to patients who were at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, per ACOG recommendations, carefully considering necessity in the critically ill. Now, we continue to administer antenatal steroids according to our usual protocols up to 36 6/7 weeks, per ACOG and SMFM recommendations, regardless of illness severity.⁷ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, once limited in COVID-19–positive patients, are now used again. Additionally, we had a comprehensive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis protocol for our obstetric patients, and we have added special consideration for prophylaxis for patients with moderate to severe illness or other VTE risk factors. While we do not perform routine circumcisions on infants of COVID-19–positive mothers, we have a process in place to provide that service after discharge when isolation precautions are lifted.

Labor accommodations. As COVID-19 cases increased in our hospital during recent months, we made one more significant change in our care protocols. To open up space in the ICU, we moved our care for asymptomatic COVID-19–positive laboring patients to our new labor and delivery unit with implemented special pathogens precautions. This is not revolutionary; many other hospitals did not have the same capability we did with our existing collaboration with the ICU for critical obstetric care. However, this change again required communication and collaboration among multiple care teams, agreement on the qualifications for delivery on labor and delivery versus in the ICU, and physical alteration of our unit to accommodate additional isolation precautions.

Visitor policy. Another change is that we have opened up the visitor policy to welcome an asymptomatic support person for the COVID-19–positive labor patient, giving special attention to adherence to isolation precautions. Our staff members have embraced this change as they have everything else, with cautious optimism and focus on keeping both the patients and the health care team safe. Our moderate to severely ill patients continue to be cared for in the COVID-19 unit in close collaboration with our infectious disease and ICU colleagues.

It’s all about teamwork

I hope I have given a clear example of our approach to providing obstetric care in the ever-changing landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic. We embraced this period of necessary change as practically and safely as possible for both our patients and our health care workers. We learned multiple times along the way that what seemed to be a good idea was not feasible, or not the ideal option, or that COVID-19 had changed the rules of the game again. Our team met daily if not more frequently, as we found we had to constantly adapt and change to each new challenge or new clinical scenario. When we struggled, it generally related to a gap in communication.

I am privileged to work with a dedicated, selfless, multidisciplinary team that rose to the occasion. They had the focused goal to provide the highest quality and safety in obstetric care while offering compassion and empathy for the experience of having a baby during a pandemic. ●

The author would like to acknowledge Danielle Prentice, DO, and Jaimie Maines, MD, for their manuscript review.

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Updated option for breast biopsy

Hologic announces updates to its Brevera^® Breast Biopsy System with CorLumina^® Imaging Technology. The Brevera system is designed for use with the manufacturer’s Affirm^® Prone biopsy guidance system. 

For more information, visit https://www.hologic.com.

“Mini-sponge” device shows potential to treat PPH

During a pilot study, reports Obstetrx, 9 patients, treated at the University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, did not respond to conventional PPH management options after vaginal birth but did respond, with bleeding resolved in 60 seconds and no adverse events, to the XSTAT device. The device was left in place for a mean time of 1 hour, and none of the patients required further surgical procedures or blood transfusions. The initial placement time of XSTAT (mean time to placement, 62 seconds) was faster than times reported for balloon uterine tamponade devices. The pilot study results were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

XSTAT is US Food and Drug Administration–approved to treat high-flow arterial bleeding in prehospital trauma settings, and Obstetrx is planning to submit for 510k clearance in 2022, after the conclusion of a follow-up PPH trial in 2021.

For more information, visit: https://www.obstetrx.com/.

Continue to: AI and ovulation prediction...

A woman’s fertility window is typically the 5 days leading up to ovulation, with peak fertility in the 2 to 3 days before ovulation. There are other options for measuring that fertile window, including luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; however, Prima-Temp reports that Priya predicts the fertile window an average of 2.6 days before tests for LH. Utilizing continuous core body temperature measurement, Priya detects subtle changes in temperature patterns that occur prior to ovulation. The app portion of the technology stores and analyzes the temperature measurements, for a high-tech fertility alert system that also offers clinical diagnostic support. Potential users of the Priya system are able to sign up to receive it through the product’s website.

For more information, visit: https://www.priyafertility.com.

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In this Update, we discuss several aspects of infertility and emerging technologic advances in treatment. We review an important infertility fact sheet recently issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) that provides a succinct overview of infertility causes, the rights of infertility patients, treatment challenges, and advocacy efforts. In addition, we discuss what the infertility literature reveals about reducing multiple birth rates and the technologic, financial, and social factors involved. Finally, we look at the molecular progress made in germline-editing technology and the myriad complications involved in its potential future translation to clinical phenotyping.

WHO recognizes the burden of infertility and addresses fertility care needs

World Health Organization (WHO). Infertility fact sheet. September 14, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2021.

The WHO published its first comprehensive infertility fact sheet in September 2020. This document is important because it validates infertility as a high-burden disease and disability that diminishes quality of life for up to 186 million individuals globally. The infertility fact sheet is a comprehensive yet focused quick read that addresses the causes of infertility, why infertility is important, challenges, and the WHO response.

Factors in infertility

Infertility is caused by different factors in women and men, yet sometimes it is unexplained, and its relative importance can vary from country to country. For women, tubal disorders (for example, postinfectious), uterine problems (fibroids, congenital), endometriosis, ovarian disorders (polycystic ovary syndrome, ovulation disorders), and endocrine imbalances are the most common factors.

For men, causes of infertility include obstruction of the reproductive tract (as after injuries or infection); hormonal disorders in the hypothalamus, pituitary, and/or testicles (for example, low testosterone); testicular failure to produce sperm (such as after cancer treatment); and abnormal sperm function and quality (low count, motility, or morphology).

Environmental and lifestyle factors— including smoking, obesity, alcohol, or toxins—can affect fertility.

Continue to: Recognizing all individuals’ fertility rights...

The WHO infertility fact sheet makes strong statements, recognizing that individuals and couples have the right to decide the number, timing, and spacing of their children. Addressing infertility is therefore an important part of realizing the right of individuals and couples to found a family. This includes heterosexual couples, same-sex partners, older persons, individuals not in sexual relationships who might require infertility management and fertility care services, and notably marginalized populations.

Addressing infertility also can help mitigate gender inequality, which has significant negative social impacts on the lives of infertile individuals, especially women. Fertility education is important to reduce the fear of infertility and contraception use in those wanting pregnancy in the future.

In most countries the biggest challenges are availability, access, and quality of interventions to address infertility. This includes the United States, where only 1 in 4 individuals receive the fertility care they need. Lack of prioritization, ineffective public health strategies, inadequate funding, and costs are barriers. Health policies need to recognize that infertility is a disease that often can be prevented, thereby reducing future costs. Comprehensive awareness and education programs, laws and policies that regulate and ensure access and the human rights of all involved, are essential.

Advocacy efforts

To address infertility and fertility care, the WHO is committed to:

• collaborate with partners on epidemiologic and etiologic research
• facilitate policy dialogue globally to frame infertility within a legal and policy framework
• support generation of data on the burden of infertility
• develop guidelines
• produce other documents of standards
• collaborate with all stakeholders to strengthen political commitment and health system capacity, and
• provide country-level technical support to develop or strengthen policies and services.

For your practice, this means that infertility is recognized as a disease that should receive its appropriate share of health care resources. Infertility and fertility care are the right of every individual according to their desires to found a family. Besides providing the best care you can to all your patients, including referring them when necessary, all health care clinicians should advocate on behalf of their patients to payors, policy makers, and the public the need to provide equitable laws, resources, and funding for infertility and fertility care.

Continue to: Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment...

Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment

Views and reviews section. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:671- 672; 673-679; 680-689; 690-714; 715-721.

In the October 2020 issue of Fertility and Sterility, the Views and Reviews section included 5 articles on avoiding multiple live birth rates (LBRs) in assisted reproductive technologies (ART).^1-5 International experts provided a comprehensive review of global multiple LBRs and their associated negative impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes, reasons for global variability, strategies to reduce multiples, single embryo transfer, and implications of funding and reporting. These international comparisons and recommendations are helpful and applicable to infertility care in the United States.³

The rise of multiple birth rates

During the first decade of in vitro fertilization (IVF), live birth rates were low, increasing to 14% in 1990. Multiple embryos needed to be transferred so that even these LBRs could be obtained. In the 1990s, however, laboratory technology improved rapidly, with increased implantation rates and subsequent rapid increases in LBR, but also with increased multiple birth rates (MBRs).

In the United States, clinic-specific reporting helped create competition among clinics for the best LBRs, and this led to MBRs of 30% and higher. Numerous studies documented the associated significantly increased morbidity and mortality of both mothers and babies. Similar situations occurred in many other countries while some, especially Nordic nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, had twin rates of less than 10% or even 5% since the early 2000s. So why the difference?

The higher MBR is due largely to the transfer of more than one embryo. The immediate solution is therefore always to perform elective single embryo transfer (eSET). However, numerous factors affect the decision to perform eSET or not, and this ideal is far from being achieved. Older women, those with longer duration of infertility and/or failed treatment, often feel a time pressure and want to transfer more embryos. Of course, biologically this is reasonable because the number and quality of their embryos is lower. While attempts have been made to assess embryo quality with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, evidence that this increases the LBR is controversial except possibly in women aged 35 to 38 years. This is especially true when the cumulative LBR, that is, the number of live births after transfer of all embryos from an egg retrieval cycle, is the measured outcome.

The major factor that determines the frequency of eSET is financial. Affordability is the out-of-pocket cost (after insurance or other subsidy) as a percentage of disposable income, and it is the most important factor that determines whether eSET is performed. Less affordable treatment creates a financial incentive to transfer more than one embryo to maximize the pregnancy rates in fewer cycles.⁵ Other factors include whether the effectiveness of treatment, that is, LBR, is emphasized over safety, that is, MBR. In the United States, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology now reports cumulative LBR, singleton and multiple LBR, and preterm births as outcomes, thereby increasing the emphasis on eSET.

Sociologic, cultural, and religious factors also can affect the frequency of eSET. Even within the United States, great variation exists in values and beliefs regarding infertility treatment. It can be challenging to determine who makes decisions: the patient alone, the physician, the payor, professional guidelines, or laws. In many countries, including the United States, it is an amalgam of these.

Setting new goals

If the goal is to reduce the MBR, what should that rate be? In the past few years, the MBR in the United States has been reduced to approximately 10%. It is reasonable now to set a goal of 5% in the next several years. To do this, we can learn from countries that have been successful. The United States already has very high-quality clinical and laboratory services, knowledgeable physicians, and a reasonable regulatory environment. Improved technology, specifically embryo selection for transfer, and focus on adherence to established embryo transfer guidelines could help.

Many would argue that eSET essentially should be performed always in women younger than age 40 and in all women of any age with a known euploid embryo. The major problem that drives multiples is the lack of affordability, which can be addressed by increased subsidies from payors. Increased subsidies can result from legislative mandates or societal pressures on employers, either of which could be associated with requirements for eSET and/or reduced MBRs.

In your practice, you can now reassure your infertility patients that cumulative LBRs are excellent in the United States and that the risk of multiple pregnancy has been reduced dramatically. This should encourage more patients to accept and take advantage of this successful technology that has resulted in the birth of millions of babies globally. Further reduction of the MBR to 5% should be possible within a few years through education and advocacy by women’s health care clinicians that results in increased subsidies and more affordable IVF.

Continue to: Genetics and ART...

Genetics and ART: Selection versus correction

Adashi EY, Cohen IG. The case for remedial germline editing—the long-term view. JAMA. 2020;323:1762-1763.

Rosenbaum L. The future of gene editing—toward scientific and social consensus. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:971-975.

Cyranoski D. The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature. 2019;566:440-442.

de Wert G, Pennings G, Clarke A, et al; European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Human germline gene editing: recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;hox025.

Following the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 and major technologic advancements in the subsequent years, the field of human genetics became the focal point of convergence for several distinct but interrelated disciplines: bioinformatics, computational biology, and sequencing technologies. As the result, individual human genomes can now be sequenced at a single base pair level, and with higher fidelity, at a fraction of the original cost and at a much faster speed.

This molecular progress, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent clinical progress, because in a significant number of cases a defined and predictable clinical phenotype cannot be attributed to a detected molecular genotype. This has resulted in an overabundance of variants of uncertain significance. Variable expressivity, incomplete penetrance, epigenetics, mosaicism, and the polygenic nature of many human traits further complicate reliable interpretation and prognostication of the colossal amount of molecular genetic data that are being generated by the above-mentioned technologic advances.

Considering these limitations, at this juncture it is crucial to acknowledge that any attempts to prematurely commercialize these preclinical and research studies (such as polygenic risk scores for embryos) are perilous and have the potential to cause significant harm in terms of unnecessary stress and anxiety for intended parents as well as the potential for yet-unmapped societal and legal implications.

However, it is just a matter of time until more accurate clinical phenotyping catches up with molecular genotyping. As we get closer to this next historic milestone, precision medicine in the postnatal life (with regard to both diagnostics and therapeutics) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) at the prenatal stage for a much wider spectrum of conditions—including both monogenic and polygenic traits—may indeed become a reality.

The potential of germline editing

Specifically regarding PGT (which requires IVF), it is important to recognize that due to the limited and nonrenewable endowment of human oocytes (ovarian reserve), combined with the detrimental impact of advancing age on the quality of the remaining cohort as manifested by a higher risk of aneuploidy, the current clinical practice of trying to “select” a nonaffected embryo can be very inefficient. As a result, the intended parents pursuing such treatments may need to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval.

A potential solution for genes associated with known diseases is the prospect of remedial germline editing by CRISPR–Cas9 technology or its future descendants. This would take advantage of the existing embryos to try to “correct” the defective gene instead of trying to “select” a normal embryo. These technologies are still in the early stages of development and are remotely distant from clinical applications. On the other hand, although germline gene editing, if actualized, would be a monumental breakthrough in the history of genetics and medicine, we must be cognizant of its serious legal, societal, and ethical ramifications, which are currently unknown. Furthermore, even at the biologic and technical level, the technology still is not advanced enough to reliably rule out off-target modifications, and the unintended clinical consequences of the on-target corrections have not been studied either.

Regulation of genetic modifications

Due to these myriad concerns and the lack of an existing appropriate regulatory framework and oversight for such interventions, current US law (since December 2015, through provisions in annual federal appropriations laws passed by Congress and renewed annually thereafter) bars the US Food and Drug Administration from considering any clinical trial application “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Notably, this moratorium also prohibits mitochondrial replacement technology (MRT), which is a less controversial and relatively better-studied innovation.

Mitochondrial genetic disorders caused by the mutations in mitochondrial DNA (versus nuclear DNA) are amenable to a specific treatment strategy aimed at substituting the defective maternal mitochondrial genome with the mitochondrial genome of an unaffected donor oocyte. This can be achieved via either pronuclear transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the male and female pronuclei from an affected embryo to an enucleated normal donor embryo, or maternal spindle transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the metaphase II spindle complex of an affected oocyte to an enucleated disease-free donor egg. It is noteworthy that in 2015 in the United Kingdom, Parliament expanded the definition of “permitted eggs and embryos” to include those “where unhealthy mitochondrial DNA is replaced by healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor.” This thereby allows the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to formally direct and oversee clinical trials in MRT.

Summing up

Although the future of assisted human reproduction cannot be clearly outlined at this time, it is likely to be radically different from the current state given these emerging applications at the intersection of ART and diagnostic and therapeutic genetics. To ensure that exploring this uncharted territory will ultimately be in the interest of humankind and civilization, proper regulatory oversight—after careful consideration of all ethical, societal, and legal implications—needs to be developed for all preclinical and clinical research in this field. Participatory public engagement must be an integrated part of this process. ●

In this Update, we discuss several aspects of infertility and emerging technologic advances in treatment. We review an important infertility fact sheet recently issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) that provides a succinct overview of infertility causes, the rights of infertility patients, treatment challenges, and advocacy efforts. In addition, we discuss what the infertility literature reveals about reducing multiple birth rates and the technologic, financial, and social factors involved. Finally, we look at the molecular progress made in germline-editing technology and the myriad complications involved in its potential future translation to clinical phenotyping.

WHO recognizes the burden of infertility and addresses fertility care needs

World Health Organization (WHO). Infertility fact sheet. September 14, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2021.

The WHO published its first comprehensive infertility fact sheet in September 2020. This document is important because it validates infertility as a high-burden disease and disability that diminishes quality of life for up to 186 million individuals globally. The infertility fact sheet is a comprehensive yet focused quick read that addresses the causes of infertility, why infertility is important, challenges, and the WHO response.

Factors in infertility

Infertility is caused by different factors in women and men, yet sometimes it is unexplained, and its relative importance can vary from country to country. For women, tubal disorders (for example, postinfectious), uterine problems (fibroids, congenital), endometriosis, ovarian disorders (polycystic ovary syndrome, ovulation disorders), and endocrine imbalances are the most common factors.

For men, causes of infertility include obstruction of the reproductive tract (as after injuries or infection); hormonal disorders in the hypothalamus, pituitary, and/or testicles (for example, low testosterone); testicular failure to produce sperm (such as after cancer treatment); and abnormal sperm function and quality (low count, motility, or morphology).

Environmental and lifestyle factors— including smoking, obesity, alcohol, or toxins—can affect fertility.

Continue to: Recognizing all individuals’ fertility rights...

The WHO infertility fact sheet makes strong statements, recognizing that individuals and couples have the right to decide the number, timing, and spacing of their children. Addressing infertility is therefore an important part of realizing the right of individuals and couples to found a family. This includes heterosexual couples, same-sex partners, older persons, individuals not in sexual relationships who might require infertility management and fertility care services, and notably marginalized populations.

Addressing infertility also can help mitigate gender inequality, which has significant negative social impacts on the lives of infertile individuals, especially women. Fertility education is important to reduce the fear of infertility and contraception use in those wanting pregnancy in the future.

In most countries the biggest challenges are availability, access, and quality of interventions to address infertility. This includes the United States, where only 1 in 4 individuals receive the fertility care they need. Lack of prioritization, ineffective public health strategies, inadequate funding, and costs are barriers. Health policies need to recognize that infertility is a disease that often can be prevented, thereby reducing future costs. Comprehensive awareness and education programs, laws and policies that regulate and ensure access and the human rights of all involved, are essential.

Advocacy efforts

To address infertility and fertility care, the WHO is committed to:

• collaborate with partners on epidemiologic and etiologic research
• facilitate policy dialogue globally to frame infertility within a legal and policy framework
• support generation of data on the burden of infertility
• develop guidelines
• produce other documents of standards
• collaborate with all stakeholders to strengthen political commitment and health system capacity, and
• provide country-level technical support to develop or strengthen policies and services.

For your practice, this means that infertility is recognized as a disease that should receive its appropriate share of health care resources. Infertility and fertility care are the right of every individual according to their desires to found a family. Besides providing the best care you can to all your patients, including referring them when necessary, all health care clinicians should advocate on behalf of their patients to payors, policy makers, and the public the need to provide equitable laws, resources, and funding for infertility and fertility care.

Continue to: Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment...

Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment

Views and reviews section. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:671- 672; 673-679; 680-689; 690-714; 715-721.

In the October 2020 issue of Fertility and Sterility, the Views and Reviews section included 5 articles on avoiding multiple live birth rates (LBRs) in assisted reproductive technologies (ART).^1-5 International experts provided a comprehensive review of global multiple LBRs and their associated negative impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes, reasons for global variability, strategies to reduce multiples, single embryo transfer, and implications of funding and reporting. These international comparisons and recommendations are helpful and applicable to infertility care in the United States.³

The rise of multiple birth rates

During the first decade of in vitro fertilization (IVF), live birth rates were low, increasing to 14% in 1990. Multiple embryos needed to be transferred so that even these LBRs could be obtained. In the 1990s, however, laboratory technology improved rapidly, with increased implantation rates and subsequent rapid increases in LBR, but also with increased multiple birth rates (MBRs).

In the United States, clinic-specific reporting helped create competition among clinics for the best LBRs, and this led to MBRs of 30% and higher. Numerous studies documented the associated significantly increased morbidity and mortality of both mothers and babies. Similar situations occurred in many other countries while some, especially Nordic nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, had twin rates of less than 10% or even 5% since the early 2000s. So why the difference?

The higher MBR is due largely to the transfer of more than one embryo. The immediate solution is therefore always to perform elective single embryo transfer (eSET). However, numerous factors affect the decision to perform eSET or not, and this ideal is far from being achieved. Older women, those with longer duration of infertility and/or failed treatment, often feel a time pressure and want to transfer more embryos. Of course, biologically this is reasonable because the number and quality of their embryos is lower. While attempts have been made to assess embryo quality with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, evidence that this increases the LBR is controversial except possibly in women aged 35 to 38 years. This is especially true when the cumulative LBR, that is, the number of live births after transfer of all embryos from an egg retrieval cycle, is the measured outcome.

The major factor that determines the frequency of eSET is financial. Affordability is the out-of-pocket cost (after insurance or other subsidy) as a percentage of disposable income, and it is the most important factor that determines whether eSET is performed. Less affordable treatment creates a financial incentive to transfer more than one embryo to maximize the pregnancy rates in fewer cycles.⁵ Other factors include whether the effectiveness of treatment, that is, LBR, is emphasized over safety, that is, MBR. In the United States, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology now reports cumulative LBR, singleton and multiple LBR, and preterm births as outcomes, thereby increasing the emphasis on eSET.

Sociologic, cultural, and religious factors also can affect the frequency of eSET. Even within the United States, great variation exists in values and beliefs regarding infertility treatment. It can be challenging to determine who makes decisions: the patient alone, the physician, the payor, professional guidelines, or laws. In many countries, including the United States, it is an amalgam of these.

Setting new goals

If the goal is to reduce the MBR, what should that rate be? In the past few years, the MBR in the United States has been reduced to approximately 10%. It is reasonable now to set a goal of 5% in the next several years. To do this, we can learn from countries that have been successful. The United States already has very high-quality clinical and laboratory services, knowledgeable physicians, and a reasonable regulatory environment. Improved technology, specifically embryo selection for transfer, and focus on adherence to established embryo transfer guidelines could help.

Many would argue that eSET essentially should be performed always in women younger than age 40 and in all women of any age with a known euploid embryo. The major problem that drives multiples is the lack of affordability, which can be addressed by increased subsidies from payors. Increased subsidies can result from legislative mandates or societal pressures on employers, either of which could be associated with requirements for eSET and/or reduced MBRs.

In your practice, you can now reassure your infertility patients that cumulative LBRs are excellent in the United States and that the risk of multiple pregnancy has been reduced dramatically. This should encourage more patients to accept and take advantage of this successful technology that has resulted in the birth of millions of babies globally. Further reduction of the MBR to 5% should be possible within a few years through education and advocacy by women’s health care clinicians that results in increased subsidies and more affordable IVF.

Continue to: Genetics and ART...

Genetics and ART: Selection versus correction

Adashi EY, Cohen IG. The case for remedial germline editing—the long-term view. JAMA. 2020;323:1762-1763.

Rosenbaum L. The future of gene editing—toward scientific and social consensus. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:971-975.

Cyranoski D. The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature. 2019;566:440-442.

de Wert G, Pennings G, Clarke A, et al; European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Human germline gene editing: recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;hox025.

Following the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 and major technologic advancements in the subsequent years, the field of human genetics became the focal point of convergence for several distinct but interrelated disciplines: bioinformatics, computational biology, and sequencing technologies. As the result, individual human genomes can now be sequenced at a single base pair level, and with higher fidelity, at a fraction of the original cost and at a much faster speed.

This molecular progress, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent clinical progress, because in a significant number of cases a defined and predictable clinical phenotype cannot be attributed to a detected molecular genotype. This has resulted in an overabundance of variants of uncertain significance. Variable expressivity, incomplete penetrance, epigenetics, mosaicism, and the polygenic nature of many human traits further complicate reliable interpretation and prognostication of the colossal amount of molecular genetic data that are being generated by the above-mentioned technologic advances.

Considering these limitations, at this juncture it is crucial to acknowledge that any attempts to prematurely commercialize these preclinical and research studies (such as polygenic risk scores for embryos) are perilous and have the potential to cause significant harm in terms of unnecessary stress and anxiety for intended parents as well as the potential for yet-unmapped societal and legal implications.

However, it is just a matter of time until more accurate clinical phenotyping catches up with molecular genotyping. As we get closer to this next historic milestone, precision medicine in the postnatal life (with regard to both diagnostics and therapeutics) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) at the prenatal stage for a much wider spectrum of conditions—including both monogenic and polygenic traits—may indeed become a reality.

The potential of germline editing

Specifically regarding PGT (which requires IVF), it is important to recognize that due to the limited and nonrenewable endowment of human oocytes (ovarian reserve), combined with the detrimental impact of advancing age on the quality of the remaining cohort as manifested by a higher risk of aneuploidy, the current clinical practice of trying to “select” a nonaffected embryo can be very inefficient. As a result, the intended parents pursuing such treatments may need to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval.

A potential solution for genes associated with known diseases is the prospect of remedial germline editing by CRISPR–Cas9 technology or its future descendants. This would take advantage of the existing embryos to try to “correct” the defective gene instead of trying to “select” a normal embryo. These technologies are still in the early stages of development and are remotely distant from clinical applications. On the other hand, although germline gene editing, if actualized, would be a monumental breakthrough in the history of genetics and medicine, we must be cognizant of its serious legal, societal, and ethical ramifications, which are currently unknown. Furthermore, even at the biologic and technical level, the technology still is not advanced enough to reliably rule out off-target modifications, and the unintended clinical consequences of the on-target corrections have not been studied either.

Regulation of genetic modifications

Due to these myriad concerns and the lack of an existing appropriate regulatory framework and oversight for such interventions, current US law (since December 2015, through provisions in annual federal appropriations laws passed by Congress and renewed annually thereafter) bars the US Food and Drug Administration from considering any clinical trial application “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Notably, this moratorium also prohibits mitochondrial replacement technology (MRT), which is a less controversial and relatively better-studied innovation.

Mitochondrial genetic disorders caused by the mutations in mitochondrial DNA (versus nuclear DNA) are amenable to a specific treatment strategy aimed at substituting the defective maternal mitochondrial genome with the mitochondrial genome of an unaffected donor oocyte. This can be achieved via either pronuclear transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the male and female pronuclei from an affected embryo to an enucleated normal donor embryo, or maternal spindle transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the metaphase II spindle complex of an affected oocyte to an enucleated disease-free donor egg. It is noteworthy that in 2015 in the United Kingdom, Parliament expanded the definition of “permitted eggs and embryos” to include those “where unhealthy mitochondrial DNA is replaced by healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor.” This thereby allows the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to formally direct and oversee clinical trials in MRT.

Summing up

Although the future of assisted human reproduction cannot be clearly outlined at this time, it is likely to be radically different from the current state given these emerging applications at the intersection of ART and diagnostic and therapeutic genetics. To ensure that exploring this uncharted territory will ultimately be in the interest of humankind and civilization, proper regulatory oversight—after careful consideration of all ethical, societal, and legal implications—needs to be developed for all preclinical and clinical research in this field. Participatory public engagement must be an integrated part of this process. ●

In this Update, we discuss several aspects of infertility and emerging technologic advances in treatment. We review an important infertility fact sheet recently issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) that provides a succinct overview of infertility causes, the rights of infertility patients, treatment challenges, and advocacy efforts. In addition, we discuss what the infertility literature reveals about reducing multiple birth rates and the technologic, financial, and social factors involved. Finally, we look at the molecular progress made in germline-editing technology and the myriad complications involved in its potential future translation to clinical phenotyping.

WHO recognizes the burden of infertility and addresses fertility care needs

World Health Organization (WHO). Infertility fact sheet. September 14, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility. Accessed January 24, 2021.

The WHO published its first comprehensive infertility fact sheet in September 2020. This document is important because it validates infertility as a high-burden disease and disability that diminishes quality of life for up to 186 million individuals globally. The infertility fact sheet is a comprehensive yet focused quick read that addresses the causes of infertility, why infertility is important, challenges, and the WHO response.

Factors in infertility

Infertility is caused by different factors in women and men, yet sometimes it is unexplained, and its relative importance can vary from country to country. For women, tubal disorders (for example, postinfectious), uterine problems (fibroids, congenital), endometriosis, ovarian disorders (polycystic ovary syndrome, ovulation disorders), and endocrine imbalances are the most common factors.

For men, causes of infertility include obstruction of the reproductive tract (as after injuries or infection); hormonal disorders in the hypothalamus, pituitary, and/or testicles (for example, low testosterone); testicular failure to produce sperm (such as after cancer treatment); and abnormal sperm function and quality (low count, motility, or morphology).

Environmental and lifestyle factors— including smoking, obesity, alcohol, or toxins—can affect fertility.

Continue to: Recognizing all individuals’ fertility rights...

The WHO infertility fact sheet makes strong statements, recognizing that individuals and couples have the right to decide the number, timing, and spacing of their children. Addressing infertility is therefore an important part of realizing the right of individuals and couples to found a family. This includes heterosexual couples, same-sex partners, older persons, individuals not in sexual relationships who might require infertility management and fertility care services, and notably marginalized populations.

Addressing infertility also can help mitigate gender inequality, which has significant negative social impacts on the lives of infertile individuals, especially women. Fertility education is important to reduce the fear of infertility and contraception use in those wanting pregnancy in the future.

In most countries the biggest challenges are availability, access, and quality of interventions to address infertility. This includes the United States, where only 1 in 4 individuals receive the fertility care they need. Lack of prioritization, ineffective public health strategies, inadequate funding, and costs are barriers. Health policies need to recognize that infertility is a disease that often can be prevented, thereby reducing future costs. Comprehensive awareness and education programs, laws and policies that regulate and ensure access and the human rights of all involved, are essential.

Advocacy efforts

To address infertility and fertility care, the WHO is committed to:

• collaborate with partners on epidemiologic and etiologic research
• facilitate policy dialogue globally to frame infertility within a legal and policy framework
• support generation of data on the burden of infertility
• develop guidelines
• produce other documents of standards
• collaborate with all stakeholders to strengthen political commitment and health system capacity, and
• provide country-level technical support to develop or strengthen policies and services.

For your practice, this means that infertility is recognized as a disease that should receive its appropriate share of health care resources. Infertility and fertility care are the right of every individual according to their desires to found a family. Besides providing the best care you can to all your patients, including referring them when necessary, all health care clinicians should advocate on behalf of their patients to payors, policy makers, and the public the need to provide equitable laws, resources, and funding for infertility and fertility care.

Continue to: Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment...

Lessons learned in reducing multiple pregnancy rates in infertility treatment

Views and reviews section. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:671- 672; 673-679; 680-689; 690-714; 715-721.

In the October 2020 issue of Fertility and Sterility, the Views and Reviews section included 5 articles on avoiding multiple live birth rates (LBRs) in assisted reproductive technologies (ART).^1-5 International experts provided a comprehensive review of global multiple LBRs and their associated negative impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes, reasons for global variability, strategies to reduce multiples, single embryo transfer, and implications of funding and reporting. These international comparisons and recommendations are helpful and applicable to infertility care in the United States.³

The rise of multiple birth rates

During the first decade of in vitro fertilization (IVF), live birth rates were low, increasing to 14% in 1990. Multiple embryos needed to be transferred so that even these LBRs could be obtained. In the 1990s, however, laboratory technology improved rapidly, with increased implantation rates and subsequent rapid increases in LBR, but also with increased multiple birth rates (MBRs).

In the United States, clinic-specific reporting helped create competition among clinics for the best LBRs, and this led to MBRs of 30% and higher. Numerous studies documented the associated significantly increased morbidity and mortality of both mothers and babies. Similar situations occurred in many other countries while some, especially Nordic nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, had twin rates of less than 10% or even 5% since the early 2000s. So why the difference?

The higher MBR is due largely to the transfer of more than one embryo. The immediate solution is therefore always to perform elective single embryo transfer (eSET). However, numerous factors affect the decision to perform eSET or not, and this ideal is far from being achieved. Older women, those with longer duration of infertility and/or failed treatment, often feel a time pressure and want to transfer more embryos. Of course, biologically this is reasonable because the number and quality of their embryos is lower. While attempts have been made to assess embryo quality with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, evidence that this increases the LBR is controversial except possibly in women aged 35 to 38 years. This is especially true when the cumulative LBR, that is, the number of live births after transfer of all embryos from an egg retrieval cycle, is the measured outcome.

The major factor that determines the frequency of eSET is financial. Affordability is the out-of-pocket cost (after insurance or other subsidy) as a percentage of disposable income, and it is the most important factor that determines whether eSET is performed. Less affordable treatment creates a financial incentive to transfer more than one embryo to maximize the pregnancy rates in fewer cycles.⁵ Other factors include whether the effectiveness of treatment, that is, LBR, is emphasized over safety, that is, MBR. In the United States, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology now reports cumulative LBR, singleton and multiple LBR, and preterm births as outcomes, thereby increasing the emphasis on eSET.

Sociologic, cultural, and religious factors also can affect the frequency of eSET. Even within the United States, great variation exists in values and beliefs regarding infertility treatment. It can be challenging to determine who makes decisions: the patient alone, the physician, the payor, professional guidelines, or laws. In many countries, including the United States, it is an amalgam of these.

Setting new goals

If the goal is to reduce the MBR, what should that rate be? In the past few years, the MBR in the United States has been reduced to approximately 10%. It is reasonable now to set a goal of 5% in the next several years. To do this, we can learn from countries that have been successful. The United States already has very high-quality clinical and laboratory services, knowledgeable physicians, and a reasonable regulatory environment. Improved technology, specifically embryo selection for transfer, and focus on adherence to established embryo transfer guidelines could help.

Many would argue that eSET essentially should be performed always in women younger than age 40 and in all women of any age with a known euploid embryo. The major problem that drives multiples is the lack of affordability, which can be addressed by increased subsidies from payors. Increased subsidies can result from legislative mandates or societal pressures on employers, either of which could be associated with requirements for eSET and/or reduced MBRs.

In your practice, you can now reassure your infertility patients that cumulative LBRs are excellent in the United States and that the risk of multiple pregnancy has been reduced dramatically. This should encourage more patients to accept and take advantage of this successful technology that has resulted in the birth of millions of babies globally. Further reduction of the MBR to 5% should be possible within a few years through education and advocacy by women’s health care clinicians that results in increased subsidies and more affordable IVF.

Continue to: Genetics and ART...

Genetics and ART: Selection versus correction

Adashi EY, Cohen IG. The case for remedial germline editing—the long-term view. JAMA. 2020;323:1762-1763.

Rosenbaum L. The future of gene editing—toward scientific and social consensus. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:971-975.

Cyranoski D. The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature. 2019;566:440-442.

de Wert G, Pennings G, Clarke A, et al; European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Human germline gene editing: recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;hox025.

Following the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 and major technologic advancements in the subsequent years, the field of human genetics became the focal point of convergence for several distinct but interrelated disciplines: bioinformatics, computational biology, and sequencing technologies. As the result, individual human genomes can now be sequenced at a single base pair level, and with higher fidelity, at a fraction of the original cost and at a much faster speed.

This molecular progress, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent clinical progress, because in a significant number of cases a defined and predictable clinical phenotype cannot be attributed to a detected molecular genotype. This has resulted in an overabundance of variants of uncertain significance. Variable expressivity, incomplete penetrance, epigenetics, mosaicism, and the polygenic nature of many human traits further complicate reliable interpretation and prognostication of the colossal amount of molecular genetic data that are being generated by the above-mentioned technologic advances.

Considering these limitations, at this juncture it is crucial to acknowledge that any attempts to prematurely commercialize these preclinical and research studies (such as polygenic risk scores for embryos) are perilous and have the potential to cause significant harm in terms of unnecessary stress and anxiety for intended parents as well as the potential for yet-unmapped societal and legal implications.

However, it is just a matter of time until more accurate clinical phenotyping catches up with molecular genotyping. As we get closer to this next historic milestone, precision medicine in the postnatal life (with regard to both diagnostics and therapeutics) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) at the prenatal stage for a much wider spectrum of conditions—including both monogenic and polygenic traits—may indeed become a reality.

The potential of germline editing

Specifically regarding PGT (which requires IVF), it is important to recognize that due to the limited and nonrenewable endowment of human oocytes (ovarian reserve), combined with the detrimental impact of advancing age on the quality of the remaining cohort as manifested by a higher risk of aneuploidy, the current clinical practice of trying to “select” a nonaffected embryo can be very inefficient. As a result, the intended parents pursuing such treatments may need to undergo multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval.

A potential solution for genes associated with known diseases is the prospect of remedial germline editing by CRISPR–Cas9 technology or its future descendants. This would take advantage of the existing embryos to try to “correct” the defective gene instead of trying to “select” a normal embryo. These technologies are still in the early stages of development and are remotely distant from clinical applications. On the other hand, although germline gene editing, if actualized, would be a monumental breakthrough in the history of genetics and medicine, we must be cognizant of its serious legal, societal, and ethical ramifications, which are currently unknown. Furthermore, even at the biologic and technical level, the technology still is not advanced enough to reliably rule out off-target modifications, and the unintended clinical consequences of the on-target corrections have not been studied either.

Regulation of genetic modifications

Due to these myriad concerns and the lack of an existing appropriate regulatory framework and oversight for such interventions, current US law (since December 2015, through provisions in annual federal appropriations laws passed by Congress and renewed annually thereafter) bars the US Food and Drug Administration from considering any clinical trial application “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Notably, this moratorium also prohibits mitochondrial replacement technology (MRT), which is a less controversial and relatively better-studied innovation.

Mitochondrial genetic disorders caused by the mutations in mitochondrial DNA (versus nuclear DNA) are amenable to a specific treatment strategy aimed at substituting the defective maternal mitochondrial genome with the mitochondrial genome of an unaffected donor oocyte. This can be achieved via either pronuclear transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the male and female pronuclei from an affected embryo to an enucleated normal donor embryo, or maternal spindle transfer, which involves isolation and transfer of the metaphase II spindle complex of an affected oocyte to an enucleated disease-free donor egg. It is noteworthy that in 2015 in the United Kingdom, Parliament expanded the definition of “permitted eggs and embryos” to include those “where unhealthy mitochondrial DNA is replaced by healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor.” This thereby allows the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to formally direct and oversee clinical trials in MRT.

Summing up

Although the future of assisted human reproduction cannot be clearly outlined at this time, it is likely to be radically different from the current state given these emerging applications at the intersection of ART and diagnostic and therapeutic genetics. To ensure that exploring this uncharted territory will ultimately be in the interest of humankind and civilization, proper regulatory oversight—after careful consideration of all ethical, societal, and legal implications—needs to be developed for all preclinical and clinical research in this field. Participatory public engagement must be an integrated part of this process. ●

Psychiatrists with expertise in delusional infestation have some advice for dermatologists, infectious disease specialists, and primary care physicians who encounter affected patients: If you want to try to help them, initiate treatment yourself.

“If you see it, try and treat it. These patients are unlikely to agree to see a psychiatrist,” Peter Lepping, MD, said at the Entomology 2020 annual meeting.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of delusional infestation (DI) is a refusal to even consider referral to a mental health professional, noted Dr. Lepping, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Bangor (Wales) University who, together with an infectious disease specialist, codirects one of the world’s few DI multispecialty referral clinics, located at the University of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

That being said, he offered another piece of advice: “Accept that it is not easy to help these patients.”

Dr. Lepping was among a group of distinguished psychiatrists, dermatologists, entomologists, and a neurologist at the annual meeting who participated in a comprehensive session devoted to DI. The experts shared tips on making the diagnosis, establishing the rapport necessary to persuade affected patients to try taking a very-low-dose antipsychotic agent for their delusion, and how to achieve a high rate of therapeutic success. They also highlighted recent research advances in the field, including brain MRI evidence suggesting that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate symptoms in DI, but not in nonsomatic delusional disorders.


 

COVID-19 pandemic triggers surge in DI

Entomologist Gail E. Ridge, PhD, has taken notes on all of her thousands of consultations with individuals with suspected DI since the late 1990s. A sharp jump in such contacts occurred during the Great Recession of 2008 in conjunction with the widespread social distress of job loss and threatened economic ruin. Now the same thing is happening as the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic stretches on. Indeed, during the first 8 months of the pandemic she documented 500 interactions involving people with suspected DI. She’s learned to identify the clues, including a chattering mind, defensiveness, physician avoidance, and rigid body tension.

Courtesy Dr. Gale E. Ridge

“They’re fearful of judgment and suggestions of madness. And they’ll pounce on any perceived negativity. I never debunk beliefs; that can immediately backfire. If the medical profession was educated about DI, then many cases could be caught early. I, as the entomologist, and the mental health professionals are often last in line to be seen,” said Dr. Ridge, director of the Insect Information Office at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven.

She has noticed a recurring theme in her interactions with these patients: DI often starts with a real underlying medical condition, such as, for example, a cutaneous drug reaction, which over time, progresses to gain a psychiatric component. And she has found that a tipping point often occurs after roughly 6 months of unrelieved symptoms and sensations. Prior to that, affected individuals are concerned about their condition and will seek medical help in a genuine effort to understand what’s going on. They can be redirected. After about 6 months, however, Dr. Ridge has observed “they slide into the rabbit hole of fanaticism and despair.”
 

Arriving at the diagnosis

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), DI is classified as a “delusional disorder, somatic type 297.1 F22.” The diagnosis requires that the delusion be present for at least 1 month, criteria for schizophrenia are not met, and the condition cannot be attributed to other medical or neuropsychiatric conditions.

“Many of these people are very high-functioning. I have corporate CEOs who fly in to see me in their private jets. At work, they’re king of their domain. At home, their family is falling apart because of their delusion,” said Dirk M. Elston, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Rapport first, medication later”

“The office visits are typically difficult to conclude, but skills can be learned and make it much easier to help these people,” Dr. Elston said.

John Koo, MD, emphasized that establishing rapport is “by far” the most important part of managing patients with DI.

Treatment tips

Dr. Koo’s first-line medication for DI is pimozide (Orap), which in the United States has the advantage of being approved only for Tourette syndrome; it’s an antipsychotic without the perceived stigma of a psychiatric indication.

“Many of these patients will not consider taking any medication that has any psychiatric indication,” he noted.

Low-dose pimozide is highly effective, according to Dr. Koo, who recommends starting at 0.5 mg to 1 mg/day, increasing by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks. The drug is usually effective at a dose of 3 mg/day or less. Once a patient’s symptoms become clear or almost clear, the patient is maintained on that dose for another 3-4 months, then tapered by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks.

“In 35 years of seeing a new patient on average every week or two, I’ve had only five patients with one recurrence and one patient with two recurrences. All six responded to repeat therapy,” Dr. Koo said.

Side effects at these low doses are “very rare,” he added. Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) at 25 mg up to four times daily is effective for complaints of stiffness or restlessness. Prolongation of the QT interval is a potential concern, but Dr. Koo has never encountered it despite routinely ordering ECGs for patients on pimozide with known heart disease or who are over age 50.

When a patient can’t tolerate pimozide, Dr. Koo’s second-line antipsychotic for DI is low-dose risperidone (Risperdal), which is also highly effective.

Dr. Lepping noted that the European situation is different. There, unlike in the United States, pimozide has regulatory approval as an antipsychotic, so it loses the advantage of being an under-the-radar neuroleptic. His go-to medication is the first-generation antipsychotic sulpiride (Dogmatil), which he finds has a more favorable side effect profile than pimozide, particularly in the elderly. (Sulpiride is not approved in the United States.)

In treating DI, he prefers more dopaminergic-focused antipsychotics over those covering a broader spectrum of receptors. His alternatives to sulpiride include risperidone and olanzapine, atypical antipsychotics. He explains to patients that just as aspirin is used in low doses for its antiplatelet effect and in higher doses for pain relief, these medications can help them feel better at much lower doses than for schizophrenia.

“Once we get some rapport and a trusting relationship going, we normally try to persuade people to basically try something against their better judgment. We know that they don’t believe in it, but you try to get them to at least try something because everything else has failed,” Dr. Lepping explained. “We tell them it’s a condition we have seen before, and we have seen these medications to be useful because they are good for their distress, they help with making them calmer, and they might help with their symptoms. We say, ‘What do you have to lose if you trust us?’

“About 60% of our patients take the medication and almost invariably they all get better,” the psychiatrist said. “The others we either lose to follow-up or they just refuse to take the medication.”

A patient’s first visit to the Liverpool multispecialty DI referral clinic is 1 hour long. “They know that in advance, and we very much stick to that hour. We say to people up front, ‘We have an hour – that’s a lot, but we don’t have more,’ ” he said.

The initial visit is typically followed by two to four 30-minute follow-up visits. Dr. Lepping recommends that when possible, patients with DI should be seen jointly by a psychiatrist and a nonpsychiatrist physician. He finds this approach leads to substantially better clinical outcomes than with a single health care provider.

“If you have two people in the clinic with the patient, when you get really annoyed and your amygdala really starts going, that’s the time when you can then turn to your colleague and say, ‘Oh yes, and Professor Squire, what do you have to say to that?’ So as you see the red mist rising in yourself because you’re getting so exasperated, you have the other person there to take over so you can calm down. And then the other person does the same. That can be really important to deescalate a heated situation,” Dr. Lepping explained.

Roughly 10% of patients with DI have what is termed folie à deux, where the delusion of infestation is shared by another person.

“Anecdotally, I would say those are much more difficult to treat,” said Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, professor of medicine (dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin and president of the Ascension Medical Group Texas.

“It’s like getting somebody to quit smoking when everybody else in the house is still smoking. It’s very hard to convince a single family member that they’re wrong when everybody else in their family keeps telling them they’re right,” he said.


Recent advances in DI research

Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators at multispecialist DI clinics in London, Italy, and Moscow reported in an unusually large observational study of 236 affected patients that longer duration of untreated psychosis was associated with significantly worse clinical outcome. It’s a finding consistent with Dr. Koo’s construct of progressive stages of delusionality, and it underscores the need for early treatment.

“Having said that, improvement is still possible, even if people have had quite a long time of untreated psychosis,” Dr. Lepping said. The same study also showed that older age at illness onset was inversely associated with good outcome.

In another study, Dr. Lepping and colleagues reported that substance use involving amphetamines, cocaine, opioids, and other drugs that can cause itch was roughly twice as common in a group of patients with DI compared to the general population. “I highly recommend, if at all possible, a drug screen in suspected DI,” he said.

In a large survey of U.S. and Canadian veterinarians, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators found that these practitioners not infrequently encountered delusional infestation among pet owners who claimed their dog or cat is infested when it’s not. This is called “delusion by proxy,” and it often leads to unwarranted animal euthanasia. Some of these pet owners claim they, too, are infested, which the investigators termed “double delusional infestation.”

MRI studies

Recent structural brain MRI studies support the concept that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate the delusional symptoms of DI, but not in delusional disorders without somatic content. This was demonstrated in an MRI study by Dr. Lepping and others conducted in 18 patients with DI, 19 others with nonsomatic delusional disorders centered on themes of persecution or jealousy, and 20 healthy volunteers. The DI group had lower gray matter volume in prefrontal, thalamic, striatal, and insular regions of the brain compared to the other two groups.

Of note, mapping of the insula and dorsal striatum indicates they are part of the peripersonal space network, which integrates tactile and visual perceptions involving the area near the body surface. The insula also mediates feelings of pain and disgust.

Some of the same investigators have also recently reported brain MRI evidence specifically of cerebellar dysfunction in patients with DI, who displayed decreased gray matter volume in left lobule VIIa of the cerebellum and increased gray matter volume in bilateral lobule VIIa/crus II compared to patients with non-somatic delusions. This points to a role for impaired cerebellar neural networks related to somatosensory perception in patients with DI but not in those with non-somatic delusions.
 

Delusional infestation: What’s in a name?

Ekbom syndrome. Delusional parasitosis. Morgellons syndrome. These and other terms are increasingly giving way to ‘delusional infestation’ as the preferred moniker for the disorder. That’s in part because the delusional focus in patients with this condition has shifted over time. In the 19th century, for example, affected patients often attributed their infestation to typhus.

In contemporary practice, roughly one-quarter of affected patients think they are infested by small inanimate objects, most commonly fibers or threads emerging from the skin, rather than by parasites, insects, or worms. In a study of 148 consecutive European patients with suspected DI, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators reported only 35% believed they were infested by parasites.

“The name ‘delusional infestation’ emphasizes the constantly changing pathogens and covers all present and future variations of the theme that are bound to occur,” Dr. Lepping observed.

All speakers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Psychiatrists with expertise in delusional infestation have some advice for dermatologists, infectious disease specialists, and primary care physicians who encounter affected patients: If you want to try to help them, initiate treatment yourself.

“If you see it, try and treat it. These patients are unlikely to agree to see a psychiatrist,” Peter Lepping, MD, said at the Entomology 2020 annual meeting.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of delusional infestation (DI) is a refusal to even consider referral to a mental health professional, noted Dr. Lepping, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Bangor (Wales) University who, together with an infectious disease specialist, codirects one of the world’s few DI multispecialty referral clinics, located at the University of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

That being said, he offered another piece of advice: “Accept that it is not easy to help these patients.”

Dr. Lepping was among a group of distinguished psychiatrists, dermatologists, entomologists, and a neurologist at the annual meeting who participated in a comprehensive session devoted to DI. The experts shared tips on making the diagnosis, establishing the rapport necessary to persuade affected patients to try taking a very-low-dose antipsychotic agent for their delusion, and how to achieve a high rate of therapeutic success. They also highlighted recent research advances in the field, including brain MRI evidence suggesting that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate symptoms in DI, but not in nonsomatic delusional disorders.


 

COVID-19 pandemic triggers surge in DI

Entomologist Gail E. Ridge, PhD, has taken notes on all of her thousands of consultations with individuals with suspected DI since the late 1990s. A sharp jump in such contacts occurred during the Great Recession of 2008 in conjunction with the widespread social distress of job loss and threatened economic ruin. Now the same thing is happening as the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic stretches on. Indeed, during the first 8 months of the pandemic she documented 500 interactions involving people with suspected DI. She’s learned to identify the clues, including a chattering mind, defensiveness, physician avoidance, and rigid body tension.

Courtesy Dr. Gale E. Ridge

“They’re fearful of judgment and suggestions of madness. And they’ll pounce on any perceived negativity. I never debunk beliefs; that can immediately backfire. If the medical profession was educated about DI, then many cases could be caught early. I, as the entomologist, and the mental health professionals are often last in line to be seen,” said Dr. Ridge, director of the Insect Information Office at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven.

She has noticed a recurring theme in her interactions with these patients: DI often starts with a real underlying medical condition, such as, for example, a cutaneous drug reaction, which over time, progresses to gain a psychiatric component. And she has found that a tipping point often occurs after roughly 6 months of unrelieved symptoms and sensations. Prior to that, affected individuals are concerned about their condition and will seek medical help in a genuine effort to understand what’s going on. They can be redirected. After about 6 months, however, Dr. Ridge has observed “they slide into the rabbit hole of fanaticism and despair.”
 

Arriving at the diagnosis

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), DI is classified as a “delusional disorder, somatic type 297.1 F22.” The diagnosis requires that the delusion be present for at least 1 month, criteria for schizophrenia are not met, and the condition cannot be attributed to other medical or neuropsychiatric conditions.

“Many of these people are very high-functioning. I have corporate CEOs who fly in to see me in their private jets. At work, they’re king of their domain. At home, their family is falling apart because of their delusion,” said Dirk M. Elston, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Rapport first, medication later”

“The office visits are typically difficult to conclude, but skills can be learned and make it much easier to help these people,” Dr. Elston said.

John Koo, MD, emphasized that establishing rapport is “by far” the most important part of managing patients with DI.

Treatment tips

Dr. Koo’s first-line medication for DI is pimozide (Orap), which in the United States has the advantage of being approved only for Tourette syndrome; it’s an antipsychotic without the perceived stigma of a psychiatric indication.

“Many of these patients will not consider taking any medication that has any psychiatric indication,” he noted.

Low-dose pimozide is highly effective, according to Dr. Koo, who recommends starting at 0.5 mg to 1 mg/day, increasing by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks. The drug is usually effective at a dose of 3 mg/day or less. Once a patient’s symptoms become clear or almost clear, the patient is maintained on that dose for another 3-4 months, then tapered by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks.

“In 35 years of seeing a new patient on average every week or two, I’ve had only five patients with one recurrence and one patient with two recurrences. All six responded to repeat therapy,” Dr. Koo said.

Side effects at these low doses are “very rare,” he added. Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) at 25 mg up to four times daily is effective for complaints of stiffness or restlessness. Prolongation of the QT interval is a potential concern, but Dr. Koo has never encountered it despite routinely ordering ECGs for patients on pimozide with known heart disease or who are over age 50.

When a patient can’t tolerate pimozide, Dr. Koo’s second-line antipsychotic for DI is low-dose risperidone (Risperdal), which is also highly effective.

Dr. Lepping noted that the European situation is different. There, unlike in the United States, pimozide has regulatory approval as an antipsychotic, so it loses the advantage of being an under-the-radar neuroleptic. His go-to medication is the first-generation antipsychotic sulpiride (Dogmatil), which he finds has a more favorable side effect profile than pimozide, particularly in the elderly. (Sulpiride is not approved in the United States.)

In treating DI, he prefers more dopaminergic-focused antipsychotics over those covering a broader spectrum of receptors. His alternatives to sulpiride include risperidone and olanzapine, atypical antipsychotics. He explains to patients that just as aspirin is used in low doses for its antiplatelet effect and in higher doses for pain relief, these medications can help them feel better at much lower doses than for schizophrenia.

“Once we get some rapport and a trusting relationship going, we normally try to persuade people to basically try something against their better judgment. We know that they don’t believe in it, but you try to get them to at least try something because everything else has failed,” Dr. Lepping explained. “We tell them it’s a condition we have seen before, and we have seen these medications to be useful because they are good for their distress, they help with making them calmer, and they might help with their symptoms. We say, ‘What do you have to lose if you trust us?’

“About 60% of our patients take the medication and almost invariably they all get better,” the psychiatrist said. “The others we either lose to follow-up or they just refuse to take the medication.”

A patient’s first visit to the Liverpool multispecialty DI referral clinic is 1 hour long. “They know that in advance, and we very much stick to that hour. We say to people up front, ‘We have an hour – that’s a lot, but we don’t have more,’ ” he said.

The initial visit is typically followed by two to four 30-minute follow-up visits. Dr. Lepping recommends that when possible, patients with DI should be seen jointly by a psychiatrist and a nonpsychiatrist physician. He finds this approach leads to substantially better clinical outcomes than with a single health care provider.

“If you have two people in the clinic with the patient, when you get really annoyed and your amygdala really starts going, that’s the time when you can then turn to your colleague and say, ‘Oh yes, and Professor Squire, what do you have to say to that?’ So as you see the red mist rising in yourself because you’re getting so exasperated, you have the other person there to take over so you can calm down. And then the other person does the same. That can be really important to deescalate a heated situation,” Dr. Lepping explained.

Roughly 10% of patients with DI have what is termed folie à deux, where the delusion of infestation is shared by another person.

“Anecdotally, I would say those are much more difficult to treat,” said Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, professor of medicine (dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin and president of the Ascension Medical Group Texas.

“It’s like getting somebody to quit smoking when everybody else in the house is still smoking. It’s very hard to convince a single family member that they’re wrong when everybody else in their family keeps telling them they’re right,” he said.


Recent advances in DI research

Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators at multispecialist DI clinics in London, Italy, and Moscow reported in an unusually large observational study of 236 affected patients that longer duration of untreated psychosis was associated with significantly worse clinical outcome. It’s a finding consistent with Dr. Koo’s construct of progressive stages of delusionality, and it underscores the need for early treatment.

“Having said that, improvement is still possible, even if people have had quite a long time of untreated psychosis,” Dr. Lepping said. The same study also showed that older age at illness onset was inversely associated with good outcome.

In another study, Dr. Lepping and colleagues reported that substance use involving amphetamines, cocaine, opioids, and other drugs that can cause itch was roughly twice as common in a group of patients with DI compared to the general population. “I highly recommend, if at all possible, a drug screen in suspected DI,” he said.

In a large survey of U.S. and Canadian veterinarians, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators found that these practitioners not infrequently encountered delusional infestation among pet owners who claimed their dog or cat is infested when it’s not. This is called “delusion by proxy,” and it often leads to unwarranted animal euthanasia. Some of these pet owners claim they, too, are infested, which the investigators termed “double delusional infestation.”

MRI studies

Recent structural brain MRI studies support the concept that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate the delusional symptoms of DI, but not in delusional disorders without somatic content. This was demonstrated in an MRI study by Dr. Lepping and others conducted in 18 patients with DI, 19 others with nonsomatic delusional disorders centered on themes of persecution or jealousy, and 20 healthy volunteers. The DI group had lower gray matter volume in prefrontal, thalamic, striatal, and insular regions of the brain compared to the other two groups.

Of note, mapping of the insula and dorsal striatum indicates they are part of the peripersonal space network, which integrates tactile and visual perceptions involving the area near the body surface. The insula also mediates feelings of pain and disgust.

Some of the same investigators have also recently reported brain MRI evidence specifically of cerebellar dysfunction in patients with DI, who displayed decreased gray matter volume in left lobule VIIa of the cerebellum and increased gray matter volume in bilateral lobule VIIa/crus II compared to patients with non-somatic delusions. This points to a role for impaired cerebellar neural networks related to somatosensory perception in patients with DI but not in those with non-somatic delusions.
 

Delusional infestation: What’s in a name?

Ekbom syndrome. Delusional parasitosis. Morgellons syndrome. These and other terms are increasingly giving way to ‘delusional infestation’ as the preferred moniker for the disorder. That’s in part because the delusional focus in patients with this condition has shifted over time. In the 19th century, for example, affected patients often attributed their infestation to typhus.

In contemporary practice, roughly one-quarter of affected patients think they are infested by small inanimate objects, most commonly fibers or threads emerging from the skin, rather than by parasites, insects, or worms. In a study of 148 consecutive European patients with suspected DI, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators reported only 35% believed they were infested by parasites.

“The name ‘delusional infestation’ emphasizes the constantly changing pathogens and covers all present and future variations of the theme that are bound to occur,” Dr. Lepping observed.

All speakers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Psychiatrists with expertise in delusional infestation have some advice for dermatologists, infectious disease specialists, and primary care physicians who encounter affected patients: If you want to try to help them, initiate treatment yourself.

“If you see it, try and treat it. These patients are unlikely to agree to see a psychiatrist,” Peter Lepping, MD, said at the Entomology 2020 annual meeting.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of delusional infestation (DI) is a refusal to even consider referral to a mental health professional, noted Dr. Lepping, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist at Bangor (Wales) University who, together with an infectious disease specialist, codirects one of the world’s few DI multispecialty referral clinics, located at the University of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

That being said, he offered another piece of advice: “Accept that it is not easy to help these patients.”

Dr. Lepping was among a group of distinguished psychiatrists, dermatologists, entomologists, and a neurologist at the annual meeting who participated in a comprehensive session devoted to DI. The experts shared tips on making the diagnosis, establishing the rapport necessary to persuade affected patients to try taking a very-low-dose antipsychotic agent for their delusion, and how to achieve a high rate of therapeutic success. They also highlighted recent research advances in the field, including brain MRI evidence suggesting that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate symptoms in DI, but not in nonsomatic delusional disorders.


 

COVID-19 pandemic triggers surge in DI

Entomologist Gail E. Ridge, PhD, has taken notes on all of her thousands of consultations with individuals with suspected DI since the late 1990s. A sharp jump in such contacts occurred during the Great Recession of 2008 in conjunction with the widespread social distress of job loss and threatened economic ruin. Now the same thing is happening as the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic stretches on. Indeed, during the first 8 months of the pandemic she documented 500 interactions involving people with suspected DI. She’s learned to identify the clues, including a chattering mind, defensiveness, physician avoidance, and rigid body tension.

Courtesy Dr. Gale E. Ridge

“They’re fearful of judgment and suggestions of madness. And they’ll pounce on any perceived negativity. I never debunk beliefs; that can immediately backfire. If the medical profession was educated about DI, then many cases could be caught early. I, as the entomologist, and the mental health professionals are often last in line to be seen,” said Dr. Ridge, director of the Insect Information Office at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven.

She has noticed a recurring theme in her interactions with these patients: DI often starts with a real underlying medical condition, such as, for example, a cutaneous drug reaction, which over time, progresses to gain a psychiatric component. And she has found that a tipping point often occurs after roughly 6 months of unrelieved symptoms and sensations. Prior to that, affected individuals are concerned about their condition and will seek medical help in a genuine effort to understand what’s going on. They can be redirected. After about 6 months, however, Dr. Ridge has observed “they slide into the rabbit hole of fanaticism and despair.”
 

Arriving at the diagnosis

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), DI is classified as a “delusional disorder, somatic type 297.1 F22.” The diagnosis requires that the delusion be present for at least 1 month, criteria for schizophrenia are not met, and the condition cannot be attributed to other medical or neuropsychiatric conditions.

“Many of these people are very high-functioning. I have corporate CEOs who fly in to see me in their private jets. At work, they’re king of their domain. At home, their family is falling apart because of their delusion,” said Dirk M. Elston, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Rapport first, medication later”

“The office visits are typically difficult to conclude, but skills can be learned and make it much easier to help these people,” Dr. Elston said.

John Koo, MD, emphasized that establishing rapport is “by far” the most important part of managing patients with DI.

Treatment tips

Dr. Koo’s first-line medication for DI is pimozide (Orap), which in the United States has the advantage of being approved only for Tourette syndrome; it’s an antipsychotic without the perceived stigma of a psychiatric indication.

“Many of these patients will not consider taking any medication that has any psychiatric indication,” he noted.

Low-dose pimozide is highly effective, according to Dr. Koo, who recommends starting at 0.5 mg to 1 mg/day, increasing by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks. The drug is usually effective at a dose of 3 mg/day or less. Once a patient’s symptoms become clear or almost clear, the patient is maintained on that dose for another 3-4 months, then tapered by 0.5 mg/day every 2-4 weeks.

“In 35 years of seeing a new patient on average every week or two, I’ve had only five patients with one recurrence and one patient with two recurrences. All six responded to repeat therapy,” Dr. Koo said.

Side effects at these low doses are “very rare,” he added. Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) at 25 mg up to four times daily is effective for complaints of stiffness or restlessness. Prolongation of the QT interval is a potential concern, but Dr. Koo has never encountered it despite routinely ordering ECGs for patients on pimozide with known heart disease or who are over age 50.

When a patient can’t tolerate pimozide, Dr. Koo’s second-line antipsychotic for DI is low-dose risperidone (Risperdal), which is also highly effective.

Dr. Lepping noted that the European situation is different. There, unlike in the United States, pimozide has regulatory approval as an antipsychotic, so it loses the advantage of being an under-the-radar neuroleptic. His go-to medication is the first-generation antipsychotic sulpiride (Dogmatil), which he finds has a more favorable side effect profile than pimozide, particularly in the elderly. (Sulpiride is not approved in the United States.)

In treating DI, he prefers more dopaminergic-focused antipsychotics over those covering a broader spectrum of receptors. His alternatives to sulpiride include risperidone and olanzapine, atypical antipsychotics. He explains to patients that just as aspirin is used in low doses for its antiplatelet effect and in higher doses for pain relief, these medications can help them feel better at much lower doses than for schizophrenia.

“Once we get some rapport and a trusting relationship going, we normally try to persuade people to basically try something against their better judgment. We know that they don’t believe in it, but you try to get them to at least try something because everything else has failed,” Dr. Lepping explained. “We tell them it’s a condition we have seen before, and we have seen these medications to be useful because they are good for their distress, they help with making them calmer, and they might help with their symptoms. We say, ‘What do you have to lose if you trust us?’

“About 60% of our patients take the medication and almost invariably they all get better,” the psychiatrist said. “The others we either lose to follow-up or they just refuse to take the medication.”

A patient’s first visit to the Liverpool multispecialty DI referral clinic is 1 hour long. “They know that in advance, and we very much stick to that hour. We say to people up front, ‘We have an hour – that’s a lot, but we don’t have more,’ ” he said.

The initial visit is typically followed by two to four 30-minute follow-up visits. Dr. Lepping recommends that when possible, patients with DI should be seen jointly by a psychiatrist and a nonpsychiatrist physician. He finds this approach leads to substantially better clinical outcomes than with a single health care provider.

“If you have two people in the clinic with the patient, when you get really annoyed and your amygdala really starts going, that’s the time when you can then turn to your colleague and say, ‘Oh yes, and Professor Squire, what do you have to say to that?’ So as you see the red mist rising in yourself because you’re getting so exasperated, you have the other person there to take over so you can calm down. And then the other person does the same. That can be really important to deescalate a heated situation,” Dr. Lepping explained.

Roughly 10% of patients with DI have what is termed folie à deux, where the delusion of infestation is shared by another person.

“Anecdotally, I would say those are much more difficult to treat,” said Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, professor of medicine (dermatology) at the University of Texas at Austin and president of the Ascension Medical Group Texas.

“It’s like getting somebody to quit smoking when everybody else in the house is still smoking. It’s very hard to convince a single family member that they’re wrong when everybody else in their family keeps telling them they’re right,” he said.


Recent advances in DI research

Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators at multispecialist DI clinics in London, Italy, and Moscow reported in an unusually large observational study of 236 affected patients that longer duration of untreated psychosis was associated with significantly worse clinical outcome. It’s a finding consistent with Dr. Koo’s construct of progressive stages of delusionality, and it underscores the need for early treatment.

“Having said that, improvement is still possible, even if people have had quite a long time of untreated psychosis,” Dr. Lepping said. The same study also showed that older age at illness onset was inversely associated with good outcome.

In another study, Dr. Lepping and colleagues reported that substance use involving amphetamines, cocaine, opioids, and other drugs that can cause itch was roughly twice as common in a group of patients with DI compared to the general population. “I highly recommend, if at all possible, a drug screen in suspected DI,” he said.

In a large survey of U.S. and Canadian veterinarians, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators found that these practitioners not infrequently encountered delusional infestation among pet owners who claimed their dog or cat is infested when it’s not. This is called “delusion by proxy,” and it often leads to unwarranted animal euthanasia. Some of these pet owners claim they, too, are infested, which the investigators termed “double delusional infestation.”

MRI studies

Recent structural brain MRI studies support the concept that impaired somatosensory neural networks mediate the delusional symptoms of DI, but not in delusional disorders without somatic content. This was demonstrated in an MRI study by Dr. Lepping and others conducted in 18 patients with DI, 19 others with nonsomatic delusional disorders centered on themes of persecution or jealousy, and 20 healthy volunteers. The DI group had lower gray matter volume in prefrontal, thalamic, striatal, and insular regions of the brain compared to the other two groups.

Of note, mapping of the insula and dorsal striatum indicates they are part of the peripersonal space network, which integrates tactile and visual perceptions involving the area near the body surface. The insula also mediates feelings of pain and disgust.

Some of the same investigators have also recently reported brain MRI evidence specifically of cerebellar dysfunction in patients with DI, who displayed decreased gray matter volume in left lobule VIIa of the cerebellum and increased gray matter volume in bilateral lobule VIIa/crus II compared to patients with non-somatic delusions. This points to a role for impaired cerebellar neural networks related to somatosensory perception in patients with DI but not in those with non-somatic delusions.
 

Delusional infestation: What’s in a name?

Ekbom syndrome. Delusional parasitosis. Morgellons syndrome. These and other terms are increasingly giving way to ‘delusional infestation’ as the preferred moniker for the disorder. That’s in part because the delusional focus in patients with this condition has shifted over time. In the 19th century, for example, affected patients often attributed their infestation to typhus.

In contemporary practice, roughly one-quarter of affected patients think they are infested by small inanimate objects, most commonly fibers or threads emerging from the skin, rather than by parasites, insects, or worms. In a study of 148 consecutive European patients with suspected DI, Dr. Lepping and coinvestigators reported only 35% believed they were infested by parasites.

“The name ‘delusional infestation’ emphasizes the constantly changing pathogens and covers all present and future variations of the theme that are bound to occur,” Dr. Lepping observed.

All speakers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Endoscopy with biopsies is best for diagnosing immune-mediated enterocolitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but another option is to first test the stool for lactoferrin or calprotectin to identify patients with mild diarrhea who could benefit from endoscopy, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Writing in Gastroenterology, Michael Dougan, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues noted that stool lactoferrin had been found in one study to be 90% sensitive for detecting histologic inflammation, while another study found that mucosal inflammation is absent in 20%-30% of patients with suspected ICI enterocolitis. Nonetheless, clinicians should consider diagnostic endoscopy before starting high-dose corticosteroids for ICI enterocolitis, especially because “colonic ulceration identified by endoscopy is the only established factor that predicts how ICI enterocolitis will respond to treatment,” Dr. Dougan and colleagues wrote. If performed, endoscopy must be prompt because ICI colitis can progress within days, especially if patients are receiving ipilimumab.

ICIs can induce autoimmune inflammation in almost any organ system because they target pathways that play “key roles in regulating autoimmunity,” the experts wrote. The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most common sites of toxicity: One study from 2006 and another from 2019 suggested that colitis, with or without enteritis, affects up to 40% of patients depending on the pathway targeted by the treatment. Oncologists manage most gastrointestinal ICI toxicities, but gastroenterologists and hepatologists often help with diagnosis, risk assessment, and managing complex, atypical, or treatment-refractory cases; to help guide this process, the experts reviewed the literature and made 15 relevant recommendations.

The authors noted that the differential diagnosis is broad, but suggested that Clostridioides difficile testing and stool culture (or stool pathogen testing, where available) should be performed in all patients to rule out infectious causes prior to any immunosuppressive treatments, such as corticosteroids. Abdominal imaging is not recommended if a patient only has diarrhea but can help rule out complications if fever, bleeding, or abdominal pain are also present. Laboratory blood tests are rarely informative.

High-dose glucocorticoids are usually effective, often being started at 0.5-2.0 mg/kg prednisone or equivalent daily and tapered over 4-6 weeks after clinical improvement, but these doses and schedules have not been rigorously examined. For glucocorticoid-refractory ICI enterocolitis, infliximab and vedolizumab “are reasonable options” for second line immunosuppression and should be individualized based on the underlying cancer and other risk factors; patients usually respond to these immunomodulators in less than a week, “an important contrast with IBD,” the experts wrote. Most cases of ICI enterocolitis do not recur unless the ICI is restarted, but “many patients require the full loading dose for infliximab or vedolizumab, and maintenance therapy may still be required for certain cases.”

ICI-induced hepatitis is less common, affecting less than 5% of patients in clinical trials according to the authors, but incidence rises if patients are on ICI combinations or an ICI plus chemotherapy. Before starting any ICI, patients’ total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, AST, and ALT levels should be checked, as should testing for hepatitis B. Liver chemistries should be repeated before each ICI cycle, and rising chemistries should trigger an assessment for other causes of liver injury.

Patients with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1 hepatitis – defined as AST or ALT 1-3 times the upper limit of normal or total bilirubin 1-1.5 times upper limit of normal – should receive liver function tests once or twice weekly. For CTCAE grade 2 hepatitis, (AST/ALT more than 3-5 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 1.5-3 times upper limit of normal), ICI should be held until resolution to grade 1, and corticosteroids (prednisone or its equivalent dosed at 0.5-1.0 mg/kg daily) should be considered if there are clinical symptoms of liver toxicity. For grade 3 hepatitis (AST/ALT greater than 5-20 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 3-10 times upper limit of normal), ICI therapy should be halted, “and urgent consultation with a gastroenterologist/hepatologist is appropriate.” In this context, methylprednisone (1-2 mg/kg) is suggested, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil can be considered if clinical hepatitis does not improve in 3-5 days. For CTCAE grade 4 hepatitis, hospitalization is recommended, and patients should permanently stop the ICI and receive 2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone or its equivalent.

The authors received no funding support. Dr. Dougan reported consulting or advisory relationships with Neoleukin Therapeutics, Genentech, Tillotts Pharma, and Partner Therapeutics and grant support from Novartis and Genentech. Two coauthors also reported ties to several pharmaceutical companies.
 

Endoscopy with biopsies is best for diagnosing immune-mediated enterocolitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but another option is to first test the stool for lactoferrin or calprotectin to identify patients with mild diarrhea who could benefit from endoscopy, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Writing in Gastroenterology, Michael Dougan, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues noted that stool lactoferrin had been found in one study to be 90% sensitive for detecting histologic inflammation, while another study found that mucosal inflammation is absent in 20%-30% of patients with suspected ICI enterocolitis. Nonetheless, clinicians should consider diagnostic endoscopy before starting high-dose corticosteroids for ICI enterocolitis, especially because “colonic ulceration identified by endoscopy is the only established factor that predicts how ICI enterocolitis will respond to treatment,” Dr. Dougan and colleagues wrote. If performed, endoscopy must be prompt because ICI colitis can progress within days, especially if patients are receiving ipilimumab.

ICIs can induce autoimmune inflammation in almost any organ system because they target pathways that play “key roles in regulating autoimmunity,” the experts wrote. The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most common sites of toxicity: One study from 2006 and another from 2019 suggested that colitis, with or without enteritis, affects up to 40% of patients depending on the pathway targeted by the treatment. Oncologists manage most gastrointestinal ICI toxicities, but gastroenterologists and hepatologists often help with diagnosis, risk assessment, and managing complex, atypical, or treatment-refractory cases; to help guide this process, the experts reviewed the literature and made 15 relevant recommendations.

The authors noted that the differential diagnosis is broad, but suggested that Clostridioides difficile testing and stool culture (or stool pathogen testing, where available) should be performed in all patients to rule out infectious causes prior to any immunosuppressive treatments, such as corticosteroids. Abdominal imaging is not recommended if a patient only has diarrhea but can help rule out complications if fever, bleeding, or abdominal pain are also present. Laboratory blood tests are rarely informative.

High-dose glucocorticoids are usually effective, often being started at 0.5-2.0 mg/kg prednisone or equivalent daily and tapered over 4-6 weeks after clinical improvement, but these doses and schedules have not been rigorously examined. For glucocorticoid-refractory ICI enterocolitis, infliximab and vedolizumab “are reasonable options” for second line immunosuppression and should be individualized based on the underlying cancer and other risk factors; patients usually respond to these immunomodulators in less than a week, “an important contrast with IBD,” the experts wrote. Most cases of ICI enterocolitis do not recur unless the ICI is restarted, but “many patients require the full loading dose for infliximab or vedolizumab, and maintenance therapy may still be required for certain cases.”

ICI-induced hepatitis is less common, affecting less than 5% of patients in clinical trials according to the authors, but incidence rises if patients are on ICI combinations or an ICI plus chemotherapy. Before starting any ICI, patients’ total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, AST, and ALT levels should be checked, as should testing for hepatitis B. Liver chemistries should be repeated before each ICI cycle, and rising chemistries should trigger an assessment for other causes of liver injury.

Patients with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1 hepatitis – defined as AST or ALT 1-3 times the upper limit of normal or total bilirubin 1-1.5 times upper limit of normal – should receive liver function tests once or twice weekly. For CTCAE grade 2 hepatitis, (AST/ALT more than 3-5 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 1.5-3 times upper limit of normal), ICI should be held until resolution to grade 1, and corticosteroids (prednisone or its equivalent dosed at 0.5-1.0 mg/kg daily) should be considered if there are clinical symptoms of liver toxicity. For grade 3 hepatitis (AST/ALT greater than 5-20 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 3-10 times upper limit of normal), ICI therapy should be halted, “and urgent consultation with a gastroenterologist/hepatologist is appropriate.” In this context, methylprednisone (1-2 mg/kg) is suggested, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil can be considered if clinical hepatitis does not improve in 3-5 days. For CTCAE grade 4 hepatitis, hospitalization is recommended, and patients should permanently stop the ICI and receive 2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone or its equivalent.

The authors received no funding support. Dr. Dougan reported consulting or advisory relationships with Neoleukin Therapeutics, Genentech, Tillotts Pharma, and Partner Therapeutics and grant support from Novartis and Genentech. Two coauthors also reported ties to several pharmaceutical companies.
 

Endoscopy with biopsies is best for diagnosing immune-mediated enterocolitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but another option is to first test the stool for lactoferrin or calprotectin to identify patients with mild diarrhea who could benefit from endoscopy, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Writing in Gastroenterology, Michael Dougan, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues noted that stool lactoferrin had been found in one study to be 90% sensitive for detecting histologic inflammation, while another study found that mucosal inflammation is absent in 20%-30% of patients with suspected ICI enterocolitis. Nonetheless, clinicians should consider diagnostic endoscopy before starting high-dose corticosteroids for ICI enterocolitis, especially because “colonic ulceration identified by endoscopy is the only established factor that predicts how ICI enterocolitis will respond to treatment,” Dr. Dougan and colleagues wrote. If performed, endoscopy must be prompt because ICI colitis can progress within days, especially if patients are receiving ipilimumab.

ICIs can induce autoimmune inflammation in almost any organ system because they target pathways that play “key roles in regulating autoimmunity,” the experts wrote. The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most common sites of toxicity: One study from 2006 and another from 2019 suggested that colitis, with or without enteritis, affects up to 40% of patients depending on the pathway targeted by the treatment. Oncologists manage most gastrointestinal ICI toxicities, but gastroenterologists and hepatologists often help with diagnosis, risk assessment, and managing complex, atypical, or treatment-refractory cases; to help guide this process, the experts reviewed the literature and made 15 relevant recommendations.

The authors noted that the differential diagnosis is broad, but suggested that Clostridioides difficile testing and stool culture (or stool pathogen testing, where available) should be performed in all patients to rule out infectious causes prior to any immunosuppressive treatments, such as corticosteroids. Abdominal imaging is not recommended if a patient only has diarrhea but can help rule out complications if fever, bleeding, or abdominal pain are also present. Laboratory blood tests are rarely informative.

High-dose glucocorticoids are usually effective, often being started at 0.5-2.0 mg/kg prednisone or equivalent daily and tapered over 4-6 weeks after clinical improvement, but these doses and schedules have not been rigorously examined. For glucocorticoid-refractory ICI enterocolitis, infliximab and vedolizumab “are reasonable options” for second line immunosuppression and should be individualized based on the underlying cancer and other risk factors; patients usually respond to these immunomodulators in less than a week, “an important contrast with IBD,” the experts wrote. Most cases of ICI enterocolitis do not recur unless the ICI is restarted, but “many patients require the full loading dose for infliximab or vedolizumab, and maintenance therapy may still be required for certain cases.”

ICI-induced hepatitis is less common, affecting less than 5% of patients in clinical trials according to the authors, but incidence rises if patients are on ICI combinations or an ICI plus chemotherapy. Before starting any ICI, patients’ total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, AST, and ALT levels should be checked, as should testing for hepatitis B. Liver chemistries should be repeated before each ICI cycle, and rising chemistries should trigger an assessment for other causes of liver injury.

Patients with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1 hepatitis – defined as AST or ALT 1-3 times the upper limit of normal or total bilirubin 1-1.5 times upper limit of normal – should receive liver function tests once or twice weekly. For CTCAE grade 2 hepatitis, (AST/ALT more than 3-5 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 1.5-3 times upper limit of normal), ICI should be held until resolution to grade 1, and corticosteroids (prednisone or its equivalent dosed at 0.5-1.0 mg/kg daily) should be considered if there are clinical symptoms of liver toxicity. For grade 3 hepatitis (AST/ALT greater than 5-20 times upper limit of normal or total bilirubin more than 3-10 times upper limit of normal), ICI therapy should be halted, “and urgent consultation with a gastroenterologist/hepatologist is appropriate.” In this context, methylprednisone (1-2 mg/kg) is suggested, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil can be considered if clinical hepatitis does not improve in 3-5 days. For CTCAE grade 4 hepatitis, hospitalization is recommended, and patients should permanently stop the ICI and receive 2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone or its equivalent.

The authors received no funding support. Dr. Dougan reported consulting or advisory relationships with Neoleukin Therapeutics, Genentech, Tillotts Pharma, and Partner Therapeutics and grant support from Novartis and Genentech. Two coauthors also reported ties to several pharmaceutical companies.
 

Metformin extended gestation by nearly a week in women with preterm preeclampsia and was also linked to a shorter neonatal hospital stay, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the virtual Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

The causes of preeclampsia have continued to elude researchers, but most agree the placenta plays a key role, explained Cathy Cluver, PhD, director of the preeclampsia research unit and an associate professor at Stellenbosch University, Cape Town. Past trials have tested sildenafil, antithrombin, pravastatin, and esomeprazole, but the drugs either did not show promise, had unacceptable side effects, or need further study.

“This trial provides proof of concept that preterm preeclampsia can be treated and that we can slow the progression of preterm preeclampsia,” Dr. Cluver said.

In this trial, the researchers enrolled 180 women with preterm preeclampsia between 26 and 31 weeks of gestation. All the women were taking hypertensives. They were randomly assigned to receive 3 g oral metformin XR or placebo daily. The intention-to-treat analysis included 87 women who received metformin and 84 who received placebo, with baseline characteristics similar in both groups.

Women in the metformin group gave birth a median 16.2 days after randomization, which was 6.7 days longer than the 9.5 days postrandomization delivery of women in the placebo group. The differences, however, narrowly missed statistical significance (P =.056).

But when the researchers took compliance and dose into account, the effect of the metformin increased, showing a dose-dependent effect, and did reach statistical significance. Among the 147 women who continued treatment until delivery, those in the metformin group delivered a median 8.4 days later than those in the placebo group (16.2 vs. 7.4 days; P =.026). Further, when the analysis was further restricted to just the 100 women who continued taking the full dose until delivery, the difference was even greater (16.2 vs. 4.8 days; P =.008). In accordance with the safety profile of metformin, women taking the drug had more diarrhea and a trend toward more nausea than those taking the placebo.

There were no differences between the groups in composite maternal or neonatal outcomes, but the infants were an average 136 g (4.8 ounces) heavier in the metformin group, albeit the difference did not reach statistical significance. The 6-day–shorter neonatal stay at the study site facility for infants of the metformin group also did not reach statistical significance, but there was a significant difference between the groups on overall stay, including transfers to other facilities. Infants in the metformin group averaged 26 days vs. 34 days for infants in the placebo group (P =.007).

“We have shown that metformin XR may be a treatment for preterm preeclampsia. We now plan to do a larger study to hopefully confirm these findings, which will be powered to both prolongation of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Cluver told this news organization. “We have also shown that one can prolong pregnancy in preterm preeclampsia, and we hope that this will encourage others in our field to continue researching therapeutics for preterm preeclampsia.”

In response to questions from attendees, Dr. Cluver reported that her team did not collect histological data from placentas in this study, and lack of funding is limiting their ability to evaluate longer-term outcomes.

The findings of prolonged gestation were certainly exciting, but they warrant caution before any changes in clinical practice, Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in an interview.

“While the findings of this study are promising, the sample size was small, the dosing exceeds what we typically use in the U.S., and this was undertaken in Cape Town, South Africa, all of which may render this study less generalizable to our population and others across the globe,” said Dr. Owens, who moderated the oral abstract session.

She also pointed out a possible conflicting effect on birth weight brought on by using metformin to extend gestation.

“If larger studies are undertaken, I believe it is quite possible that, with extended gestation, there will be bigger babies,” she said. “However, metformin also helps control blood glucose and in so doing, may contribute to lower birth weights over time, compared with women not exposed to the drug.”

Dr. Cluver and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

*This story was updated on 2/9/2021. 

Metformin extended gestation by nearly a week in women with preterm preeclampsia and was also linked to a shorter neonatal hospital stay, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the virtual Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

The causes of preeclampsia have continued to elude researchers, but most agree the placenta plays a key role, explained Cathy Cluver, PhD, director of the preeclampsia research unit and an associate professor at Stellenbosch University, Cape Town. Past trials have tested sildenafil, antithrombin, pravastatin, and esomeprazole, but the drugs either did not show promise, had unacceptable side effects, or need further study.

“This trial provides proof of concept that preterm preeclampsia can be treated and that we can slow the progression of preterm preeclampsia,” Dr. Cluver said.

In this trial, the researchers enrolled 180 women with preterm preeclampsia between 26 and 31 weeks of gestation. All the women were taking hypertensives. They were randomly assigned to receive 3 g oral metformin XR or placebo daily. The intention-to-treat analysis included 87 women who received metformin and 84 who received placebo, with baseline characteristics similar in both groups.

Women in the metformin group gave birth a median 16.2 days after randomization, which was 6.7 days longer than the 9.5 days postrandomization delivery of women in the placebo group. The differences, however, narrowly missed statistical significance (P =.056).

But when the researchers took compliance and dose into account, the effect of the metformin increased, showing a dose-dependent effect, and did reach statistical significance. Among the 147 women who continued treatment until delivery, those in the metformin group delivered a median 8.4 days later than those in the placebo group (16.2 vs. 7.4 days; P =.026). Further, when the analysis was further restricted to just the 100 women who continued taking the full dose until delivery, the difference was even greater (16.2 vs. 4.8 days; P =.008). In accordance with the safety profile of metformin, women taking the drug had more diarrhea and a trend toward more nausea than those taking the placebo.

There were no differences between the groups in composite maternal or neonatal outcomes, but the infants were an average 136 g (4.8 ounces) heavier in the metformin group, albeit the difference did not reach statistical significance. The 6-day–shorter neonatal stay at the study site facility for infants of the metformin group also did not reach statistical significance, but there was a significant difference between the groups on overall stay, including transfers to other facilities. Infants in the metformin group averaged 26 days vs. 34 days for infants in the placebo group (P =.007).

“We have shown that metformin XR may be a treatment for preterm preeclampsia. We now plan to do a larger study to hopefully confirm these findings, which will be powered to both prolongation of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Cluver told this news organization. “We have also shown that one can prolong pregnancy in preterm preeclampsia, and we hope that this will encourage others in our field to continue researching therapeutics for preterm preeclampsia.”

In response to questions from attendees, Dr. Cluver reported that her team did not collect histological data from placentas in this study, and lack of funding is limiting their ability to evaluate longer-term outcomes.

The findings of prolonged gestation were certainly exciting, but they warrant caution before any changes in clinical practice, Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in an interview.

“While the findings of this study are promising, the sample size was small, the dosing exceeds what we typically use in the U.S., and this was undertaken in Cape Town, South Africa, all of which may render this study less generalizable to our population and others across the globe,” said Dr. Owens, who moderated the oral abstract session.

She also pointed out a possible conflicting effect on birth weight brought on by using metformin to extend gestation.

“If larger studies are undertaken, I believe it is quite possible that, with extended gestation, there will be bigger babies,” she said. “However, metformin also helps control blood glucose and in so doing, may contribute to lower birth weights over time, compared with women not exposed to the drug.”

Dr. Cluver and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

*This story was updated on 2/9/2021. 

Metformin extended gestation by nearly a week in women with preterm preeclampsia and was also linked to a shorter neonatal hospital stay, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the virtual Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

The causes of preeclampsia have continued to elude researchers, but most agree the placenta plays a key role, explained Cathy Cluver, PhD, director of the preeclampsia research unit and an associate professor at Stellenbosch University, Cape Town. Past trials have tested sildenafil, antithrombin, pravastatin, and esomeprazole, but the drugs either did not show promise, had unacceptable side effects, or need further study.

“This trial provides proof of concept that preterm preeclampsia can be treated and that we can slow the progression of preterm preeclampsia,” Dr. Cluver said.

In this trial, the researchers enrolled 180 women with preterm preeclampsia between 26 and 31 weeks of gestation. All the women were taking hypertensives. They were randomly assigned to receive 3 g oral metformin XR or placebo daily. The intention-to-treat analysis included 87 women who received metformin and 84 who received placebo, with baseline characteristics similar in both groups.

Women in the metformin group gave birth a median 16.2 days after randomization, which was 6.7 days longer than the 9.5 days postrandomization delivery of women in the placebo group. The differences, however, narrowly missed statistical significance (P =.056).

But when the researchers took compliance and dose into account, the effect of the metformin increased, showing a dose-dependent effect, and did reach statistical significance. Among the 147 women who continued treatment until delivery, those in the metformin group delivered a median 8.4 days later than those in the placebo group (16.2 vs. 7.4 days; P =.026). Further, when the analysis was further restricted to just the 100 women who continued taking the full dose until delivery, the difference was even greater (16.2 vs. 4.8 days; P =.008). In accordance with the safety profile of metformin, women taking the drug had more diarrhea and a trend toward more nausea than those taking the placebo.

There were no differences between the groups in composite maternal or neonatal outcomes, but the infants were an average 136 g (4.8 ounces) heavier in the metformin group, albeit the difference did not reach statistical significance. The 6-day–shorter neonatal stay at the study site facility for infants of the metformin group also did not reach statistical significance, but there was a significant difference between the groups on overall stay, including transfers to other facilities. Infants in the metformin group averaged 26 days vs. 34 days for infants in the placebo group (P =.007).

“We have shown that metformin XR may be a treatment for preterm preeclampsia. We now plan to do a larger study to hopefully confirm these findings, which will be powered to both prolongation of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Cluver told this news organization. “We have also shown that one can prolong pregnancy in preterm preeclampsia, and we hope that this will encourage others in our field to continue researching therapeutics for preterm preeclampsia.”

In response to questions from attendees, Dr. Cluver reported that her team did not collect histological data from placentas in this study, and lack of funding is limiting their ability to evaluate longer-term outcomes.

The findings of prolonged gestation were certainly exciting, but they warrant caution before any changes in clinical practice, Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in an interview.

“While the findings of this study are promising, the sample size was small, the dosing exceeds what we typically use in the U.S., and this was undertaken in Cape Town, South Africa, all of which may render this study less generalizable to our population and others across the globe,” said Dr. Owens, who moderated the oral abstract session.

She also pointed out a possible conflicting effect on birth weight brought on by using metformin to extend gestation.

“If larger studies are undertaken, I believe it is quite possible that, with extended gestation, there will be bigger babies,” she said. “However, metformin also helps control blood glucose and in so doing, may contribute to lower birth weights over time, compared with women not exposed to the drug.”

Dr. Cluver and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

*This story was updated on 2/9/2021. 

The Diagnosis: Phytophotodermatitis 

A  more detailed patient history revealed that there was beer with limes on the boat, but the partygoers neglected to bring a knife. The patient volunteered to tear the limes apart with his bare hands. Because he was clad only in swim trunks, lime juice splattered over various regions of his body. 

Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic blistering rash that follows topical exposure to plant-derived furocoumarins and sunlight. (Figure) Furocoumarins are photosensitizing substances produced by certain plants, possibly as a defense mechanism against predators.¹ They cause a nonimmunologic phototoxic reaction when deposited on the skin and exposed to UVA radiation. Exposure to limes is the most common precipitant of phytophotodermatitis, but other potential culprits include lemons, grapefruit, figs, carrots, parsnips, celery, and dill.²  

Lesions associated with phytophotodermatitis classically present as painful erythematous patches and bullae in regions of furocoumarin exposure. Affected areas are well demarcated and irregularly shaped and heal with a characteristic hyperpigmented rim. They often have a downward streak pattern from the dripping juice.³ If the furocoumarins are transferred by touch, lesions can appear in the shape of handprints, which may raise alarms for physical abuse in children.⁴ 

Photochemical reactions caused by activated furocoumarins cross-link nuclear DNA and damage cell membranes. These changes lead to cellular death resulting in edema and destruction of the epidermis. Other effects include an increase in keratin and thickening of the stratum corneum. The hyperpigmentation is a result of increased concentration of melanosomes and stimulation of melanocytes by activated furocoumarins.⁵ 

Management of phytophotodermatitis depends on the severity of skin injury. Mild cases may not require any treatment, whereas the most severe ones require admission to a burn unit for wound care. Anti-inflammatory medications are the mainstay of therapy. Our patient was prescribed desonide cream 0.05% for application to the affected areas. Sunscreen should be applied to prevent worsening of hyperpigmentation, which may take months to years to fade naturally. If hyperpigmentation is cosmetically troubling to the patient, bleaching agents such as hydroquinone and retinoids or Nd:YAG laser can be used to accelerate the resolution of pigment.⁵ 

Phototoxicity differs from less common photoallergic reactions caused by preformed antibodies or a delayed cell-mediated response to a trigger. The classic presentation of photoallergy is apruritic, inflammatory, bullous eruption in a sensitized individual.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis more commonly is associated with pruritus than pain, and it presents as a papulovesicular eruption that evolves into lichenified plaques.⁷ Porphyria cutanea tarda would likely be accompanied by other cutaneous features such as hypertrichosis and sclerodermoid plaques with dystrophic calcification, in addition to wine-colored urine-containing porphyrins.⁸ Bullous fixed drug eruptions develop within 48 hours of exposure to a causative agent. The patient typically would experience pruritus and burning at the site of clearly demarcated erythematous lesions that healed with hyperpigmentation.⁹ Lesions of bullous lupus erythematosus may appear in areas without sun exposure, and they would be more likely to leave behind hypopigmentation rather than hyperpigmentation.¹⁰ 

The Diagnosis: Phytophotodermatitis 

A  more detailed patient history revealed that there was beer with limes on the boat, but the partygoers neglected to bring a knife. The patient volunteered to tear the limes apart with his bare hands. Because he was clad only in swim trunks, lime juice splattered over various regions of his body. 

Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic blistering rash that follows topical exposure to plant-derived furocoumarins and sunlight. (Figure) Furocoumarins are photosensitizing substances produced by certain plants, possibly as a defense mechanism against predators.¹ They cause a nonimmunologic phototoxic reaction when deposited on the skin and exposed to UVA radiation. Exposure to limes is the most common precipitant of phytophotodermatitis, but other potential culprits include lemons, grapefruit, figs, carrots, parsnips, celery, and dill.²  

Lesions associated with phytophotodermatitis classically present as painful erythematous patches and bullae in regions of furocoumarin exposure. Affected areas are well demarcated and irregularly shaped and heal with a characteristic hyperpigmented rim. They often have a downward streak pattern from the dripping juice.³ If the furocoumarins are transferred by touch, lesions can appear in the shape of handprints, which may raise alarms for physical abuse in children.⁴ 

Photochemical reactions caused by activated furocoumarins cross-link nuclear DNA and damage cell membranes. These changes lead to cellular death resulting in edema and destruction of the epidermis. Other effects include an increase in keratin and thickening of the stratum corneum. The hyperpigmentation is a result of increased concentration of melanosomes and stimulation of melanocytes by activated furocoumarins.⁵ 

Management of phytophotodermatitis depends on the severity of skin injury. Mild cases may not require any treatment, whereas the most severe ones require admission to a burn unit for wound care. Anti-inflammatory medications are the mainstay of therapy. Our patient was prescribed desonide cream 0.05% for application to the affected areas. Sunscreen should be applied to prevent worsening of hyperpigmentation, which may take months to years to fade naturally. If hyperpigmentation is cosmetically troubling to the patient, bleaching agents such as hydroquinone and retinoids or Nd:YAG laser can be used to accelerate the resolution of pigment.⁵ 

Phototoxicity differs from less common photoallergic reactions caused by preformed antibodies or a delayed cell-mediated response to a trigger. The classic presentation of photoallergy is apruritic, inflammatory, bullous eruption in a sensitized individual.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis more commonly is associated with pruritus than pain, and it presents as a papulovesicular eruption that evolves into lichenified plaques.⁷ Porphyria cutanea tarda would likely be accompanied by other cutaneous features such as hypertrichosis and sclerodermoid plaques with dystrophic calcification, in addition to wine-colored urine-containing porphyrins.⁸ Bullous fixed drug eruptions develop within 48 hours of exposure to a causative agent. The patient typically would experience pruritus and burning at the site of clearly demarcated erythematous lesions that healed with hyperpigmentation.⁹ Lesions of bullous lupus erythematosus may appear in areas without sun exposure, and they would be more likely to leave behind hypopigmentation rather than hyperpigmentation.¹⁰ 

The Diagnosis: Phytophotodermatitis 

A  more detailed patient history revealed that there was beer with limes on the boat, but the partygoers neglected to bring a knife. The patient volunteered to tear the limes apart with his bare hands. Because he was clad only in swim trunks, lime juice splattered over various regions of his body. 

Phytophotodermatitis is a phototoxic blistering rash that follows topical exposure to plant-derived furocoumarins and sunlight. (Figure) Furocoumarins are photosensitizing substances produced by certain plants, possibly as a defense mechanism against predators.¹ They cause a nonimmunologic phototoxic reaction when deposited on the skin and exposed to UVA radiation. Exposure to limes is the most common precipitant of phytophotodermatitis, but other potential culprits include lemons, grapefruit, figs, carrots, parsnips, celery, and dill.²  

Lesions associated with phytophotodermatitis classically present as painful erythematous patches and bullae in regions of furocoumarin exposure. Affected areas are well demarcated and irregularly shaped and heal with a characteristic hyperpigmented rim. They often have a downward streak pattern from the dripping juice.³ If the furocoumarins are transferred by touch, lesions can appear in the shape of handprints, which may raise alarms for physical abuse in children.⁴ 

Photochemical reactions caused by activated furocoumarins cross-link nuclear DNA and damage cell membranes. These changes lead to cellular death resulting in edema and destruction of the epidermis. Other effects include an increase in keratin and thickening of the stratum corneum. The hyperpigmentation is a result of increased concentration of melanosomes and stimulation of melanocytes by activated furocoumarins.⁵ 

Management of phytophotodermatitis depends on the severity of skin injury. Mild cases may not require any treatment, whereas the most severe ones require admission to a burn unit for wound care. Anti-inflammatory medications are the mainstay of therapy. Our patient was prescribed desonide cream 0.05% for application to the affected areas. Sunscreen should be applied to prevent worsening of hyperpigmentation, which may take months to years to fade naturally. If hyperpigmentation is cosmetically troubling to the patient, bleaching agents such as hydroquinone and retinoids or Nd:YAG laser can be used to accelerate the resolution of pigment.⁵ 

Phototoxicity differs from less common photoallergic reactions caused by preformed antibodies or a delayed cell-mediated response to a trigger. The classic presentation of photoallergy is apruritic, inflammatory, bullous eruption in a sensitized individual.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis more commonly is associated with pruritus than pain, and it presents as a papulovesicular eruption that evolves into lichenified plaques.⁷ Porphyria cutanea tarda would likely be accompanied by other cutaneous features such as hypertrichosis and sclerodermoid plaques with dystrophic calcification, in addition to wine-colored urine-containing porphyrins.⁸ Bullous fixed drug eruptions develop within 48 hours of exposure to a causative agent. The patient typically would experience pruritus and burning at the site of clearly demarcated erythematous lesions that healed with hyperpigmentation.⁹ Lesions of bullous lupus erythematosus may appear in areas without sun exposure, and they would be more likely to leave behind hypopigmentation rather than hyperpigmentation.¹⁰