NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Congress is considering two separate, comprehensive proposals to address the escalating cost of drug prices, but neither is expected to make it to the President’s desk.

The more likely scenario is that parts of these bills aimed at reforming the Medicare Part D prescription drug program could be added on to a must-pass budget bill before the end of 2019, according to Ross Margulies, senior associate in the Washington office of the law firm Foley Hoag.

A bill championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), H.R. 3, is considered dead on arrival in the Senate since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has stated that the upper chamber will not take it up, Mr. Margulies said at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Despite this, the House is expected to move on H.R. 3 in mid-November. The bill has gone through three committee markups, and each have amended its language. The final bill language has not been released yet.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (S. 2543) enjoys some bipartisan support, but Mr. Margulies questioned whether there was enough to pass it.

But there are some provisions in both pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support and could ultimately be passed though other legislative vehicles, he said.

One proposal that is common to both bills is a cap on out-of-pocket spending by Part D beneficiaries, though the bills differ on how high to set the cap. The House bill caps annual beneficiary spending at $2,000, while the Senate proposal caps it at $3,600.

The lack of a cap “has increasingly raised some issues over the years as we have seen more and more specialty drugs come on the market that push individuals into the catastrophic phase in that first or second phase of that first or second refill,” Mr. Margulies said.

Another area that is garnering bipartisan support is reforming the structure of Medicare Part D.

Mr. Margulies noted that generally the Part D program has enjoyed bipartisan and consumer support and there “hasn’t been a major restructuring of the Part D benefit since its creation more than a decade ago.”

“I really think this is an area where Congress is in a bipartisan way very focused,” he added.

The redesign proposals in the two bills would fundamentally change how the catastrophic phase is covered. The out-of-pocket limits would eliminate beneficiary cost sharing in this phase, currently set at 5% of list price with no cap on spending, and dramatically reduce the government’s financial exposure during this phase.

Currently, the federal government covers 80% of the cost of drugs for beneficiaries in catastrophic coverage, and the plan sponsors cover the remaining 15%. The House and Senate plans both reduce government coverage to 20%. Under the House proposal, drug plans would be responsible for 50% while manufacturers would cover the remaining 30%. The Senate bill proposes a split of 60% for plans and 20% for manufacturers.

“Under either of these proposals, manufacturers with the highest-priced specialty drugs are probably going to fare the worst because you have that new open-ended liability in the catastrophic phase,” Mr. Margulies said.

On the plan side, “plans will face increased pressure to control costs/utilization,” he added.

These proposals could encourage manufacturers to reduce list prices and drug plans to more aggressively negotiate rebates and discounts.

One element of H.R. 3 that is not a part of the Senate bill is the requirement that the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services negotiate drug prices for a certain number of high-cost drugs each year. Those negotiations would be backstopped by an international pricing index, with the aim of bringing the prices paid in the United States much closer to the lower prices paid internationally.

H.R. 3 also includes a hefty excise tax for manufacturers who either don’t participate in the negotiations or fail to offer price reductions that are within a specified percentage of the international pricing index.

Mr. Margulies noted that Speaker Pelosi was hoping to get White House endorsement on the drug negotiation provision, since it is similar to regulations proposed by HHS earlier this year, but impeachment proceedings have derailed any chance of getting that endorsement.

Mr. Margulies made no financial disclosures related to his presentation.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Congress is considering two separate, comprehensive proposals to address the escalating cost of drug prices, but neither is expected to make it to the President’s desk.

The more likely scenario is that parts of these bills aimed at reforming the Medicare Part D prescription drug program could be added on to a must-pass budget bill before the end of 2019, according to Ross Margulies, senior associate in the Washington office of the law firm Foley Hoag.

A bill championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), H.R. 3, is considered dead on arrival in the Senate since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has stated that the upper chamber will not take it up, Mr. Margulies said at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Despite this, the House is expected to move on H.R. 3 in mid-November. The bill has gone through three committee markups, and each have amended its language. The final bill language has not been released yet.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (S. 2543) enjoys some bipartisan support, but Mr. Margulies questioned whether there was enough to pass it.

But there are some provisions in both pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support and could ultimately be passed though other legislative vehicles, he said.

One proposal that is common to both bills is a cap on out-of-pocket spending by Part D beneficiaries, though the bills differ on how high to set the cap. The House bill caps annual beneficiary spending at $2,000, while the Senate proposal caps it at $3,600.

The lack of a cap “has increasingly raised some issues over the years as we have seen more and more specialty drugs come on the market that push individuals into the catastrophic phase in that first or second phase of that first or second refill,” Mr. Margulies said.

Another area that is garnering bipartisan support is reforming the structure of Medicare Part D.

Mr. Margulies noted that generally the Part D program has enjoyed bipartisan and consumer support and there “hasn’t been a major restructuring of the Part D benefit since its creation more than a decade ago.”

“I really think this is an area where Congress is in a bipartisan way very focused,” he added.

The redesign proposals in the two bills would fundamentally change how the catastrophic phase is covered. The out-of-pocket limits would eliminate beneficiary cost sharing in this phase, currently set at 5% of list price with no cap on spending, and dramatically reduce the government’s financial exposure during this phase.

Currently, the federal government covers 80% of the cost of drugs for beneficiaries in catastrophic coverage, and the plan sponsors cover the remaining 15%. The House and Senate plans both reduce government coverage to 20%. Under the House proposal, drug plans would be responsible for 50% while manufacturers would cover the remaining 30%. The Senate bill proposes a split of 60% for plans and 20% for manufacturers.

“Under either of these proposals, manufacturers with the highest-priced specialty drugs are probably going to fare the worst because you have that new open-ended liability in the catastrophic phase,” Mr. Margulies said.

On the plan side, “plans will face increased pressure to control costs/utilization,” he added.

These proposals could encourage manufacturers to reduce list prices and drug plans to more aggressively negotiate rebates and discounts.

One element of H.R. 3 that is not a part of the Senate bill is the requirement that the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services negotiate drug prices for a certain number of high-cost drugs each year. Those negotiations would be backstopped by an international pricing index, with the aim of bringing the prices paid in the United States much closer to the lower prices paid internationally.

H.R. 3 also includes a hefty excise tax for manufacturers who either don’t participate in the negotiations or fail to offer price reductions that are within a specified percentage of the international pricing index.

Mr. Margulies noted that Speaker Pelosi was hoping to get White House endorsement on the drug negotiation provision, since it is similar to regulations proposed by HHS earlier this year, but impeachment proceedings have derailed any chance of getting that endorsement.

Mr. Margulies made no financial disclosures related to his presentation.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Congress is considering two separate, comprehensive proposals to address the escalating cost of drug prices, but neither is expected to make it to the President’s desk.

The more likely scenario is that parts of these bills aimed at reforming the Medicare Part D prescription drug program could be added on to a must-pass budget bill before the end of 2019, according to Ross Margulies, senior associate in the Washington office of the law firm Foley Hoag.

A bill championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), H.R. 3, is considered dead on arrival in the Senate since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has stated that the upper chamber will not take it up, Mr. Margulies said at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

Despite this, the House is expected to move on H.R. 3 in mid-November. The bill has gone through three committee markups, and each have amended its language. The final bill language has not been released yet.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (S. 2543) enjoys some bipartisan support, but Mr. Margulies questioned whether there was enough to pass it.

But there are some provisions in both pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support and could ultimately be passed though other legislative vehicles, he said.

One proposal that is common to both bills is a cap on out-of-pocket spending by Part D beneficiaries, though the bills differ on how high to set the cap. The House bill caps annual beneficiary spending at $2,000, while the Senate proposal caps it at $3,600.

The lack of a cap “has increasingly raised some issues over the years as we have seen more and more specialty drugs come on the market that push individuals into the catastrophic phase in that first or second phase of that first or second refill,” Mr. Margulies said.

Another area that is garnering bipartisan support is reforming the structure of Medicare Part D.

Mr. Margulies noted that generally the Part D program has enjoyed bipartisan and consumer support and there “hasn’t been a major restructuring of the Part D benefit since its creation more than a decade ago.”

“I really think this is an area where Congress is in a bipartisan way very focused,” he added.

The redesign proposals in the two bills would fundamentally change how the catastrophic phase is covered. The out-of-pocket limits would eliminate beneficiary cost sharing in this phase, currently set at 5% of list price with no cap on spending, and dramatically reduce the government’s financial exposure during this phase.

Currently, the federal government covers 80% of the cost of drugs for beneficiaries in catastrophic coverage, and the plan sponsors cover the remaining 15%. The House and Senate plans both reduce government coverage to 20%. Under the House proposal, drug plans would be responsible for 50% while manufacturers would cover the remaining 30%. The Senate bill proposes a split of 60% for plans and 20% for manufacturers.

“Under either of these proposals, manufacturers with the highest-priced specialty drugs are probably going to fare the worst because you have that new open-ended liability in the catastrophic phase,” Mr. Margulies said.

On the plan side, “plans will face increased pressure to control costs/utilization,” he added.

These proposals could encourage manufacturers to reduce list prices and drug plans to more aggressively negotiate rebates and discounts.

One element of H.R. 3 that is not a part of the Senate bill is the requirement that the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services negotiate drug prices for a certain number of high-cost drugs each year. Those negotiations would be backstopped by an international pricing index, with the aim of bringing the prices paid in the United States much closer to the lower prices paid internationally.

H.R. 3 also includes a hefty excise tax for manufacturers who either don’t participate in the negotiations or fail to offer price reductions that are within a specified percentage of the international pricing index.

Mr. Margulies noted that Speaker Pelosi was hoping to get White House endorsement on the drug negotiation provision, since it is similar to regulations proposed by HHS earlier this year, but impeachment proceedings have derailed any chance of getting that endorsement.

Mr. Margulies made no financial disclosures related to his presentation.

[email protected]

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

Case 1 Multiparous woman presents with heavy regular menses

Over the past several years, a 34-year-old woman has noted increasing intensity and duration of menstrual flow, which now persists for 8 days and includes clots “the size of quarters” and soaks a pad within 1 hour. Sometimes she misses or leaves work on her heaviest days of flow. She reports that menstrual cramps prior to and during flow are increasingly bothersome and do not respond adequately to ibuprofen. She intermittently uses condoms for contraception. She does not wish to be pregnant currently; however, she recently entered into a new relationship and may wish to conceive in the future.

On bimanual examination, the uterus appears bulky. Her hemoglobin is 10.9 g/dL with low mean corpuscular volume and a serum ferritin level indicating iron depletion. Pelvic ultrasonography suggests uterine adenomyosis; no fibroids are imaged (FIGURE 1).

You advise the patient to take ferrous sulfate 325 mg every other day. After discussion with the patient regarding different treatment options, she chooses to proceed with placement of a 52-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD; Mirena or Liletta).

Case 2 Older adolescent presents with irregular bleeding

A 19-year-old patient reports approximately 6 bleeding episodes each year. She reports the duration of her bleeding as variable, and sometimes the bleeding is heavy with small clots passed. She has been previously diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives have been prescribed several times in the past, but she always has discontinued them due to nausea. The patient is in a same-sex relationship and does not anticipate being sexually active with a male. She reports having to shave her mustache and chin twice weekly for the past 1 to 2 years.

On physical examination, the patient is obese (body mass index [BMI], 32 kg/m²), facial acne and hirsutism are present, and hair extends from the mons toward the umbilicus. Bimanual examination reveals a normal size, mobile, nontender uterus without obvious adnexal pathology. Pelvic ultrasonography demonstrates a normal-appearing uterus with multiplanar endometrium (consistent with proliferative changes) (FIGURE 2). Ovarian imaging demonstrates ≥12 follicles per image (FIGURE 3).

About one-third of all women experience abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) sometime during their lifetime and AUB can impair quality of life.¹ Surgical management, including hysterectomy and endometrial ablation, plays an important role in the management of AUB in patients who do not desire future pregnancies. However, many cases of AUB occur in women who may not have completed childbearing or in women who prefer to avoid surgery.² AUB can be managed effectively medically in most cases.¹ Accordingly, in this review, we focus on nonsurgical management of AUB.

Continue to: Because previously used terms, including...

Because previously used terms, including menorrhagia and meno-metrorrhagia, were inconsistently defined and confusing, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics introduced updated terminology in 2011 to better describe and characterize AUB in nonpregnant women. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) refers to ovulatory (cyclic) bleeding that is more than 8 days’ duration, or sufficiently heavy to impair a woman’s quality of life. HMB is a pattern of AUB distinct from the irregular bleeding pattern typically caused by ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O).¹

Clinical evaluation

Obtain menstrual history. In addition to a medical, surgical, and gynecologic history, a thorough menstrual history should be obtained to further characterize the patient’s bleeding pattern. In contrast to the cyclical or ovulatory bleeding seen with HMB, bleeding associated with inconsistent ovulation (AUB-O) is unpredictable or irregular, and is commonly associated with PCOS. AUB-O is also encountered in recently menarchal girls (secondary to immaturity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis) and in those who are perimenopausal. In addition, medications that can induce hyperprolactinemia (such as certain antipsychotics) can cause AUB-O.

Evaluate for all sources of bleeding. Be sure to evaluate for extrauterine causes of bleeding, including the cervix, vagina, vulva, or the urinary or gastrointestinal tracts for bleeding. Intermenstrual bleeding occurring between normal regular menses may be caused by an endometrial polyp, submucosal fibroid, endometritis, or an IUD. The patient report of postcoital bleeding suggests that cervical disease (cervicitis, polyp, or malignancy) may be present. Uterine leiomyoma or adenomyosis represent common causes of HMB. However, HMB also may be caused by a copper IUD, coagulation disorders (including von Willebrand disease), or use of anticoagulant medications. Hormonal contraceptives also can cause irregular bleeding.

Perform a pelvic examination and measure vital signs. The presence of fever suggests the possible presence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), while orthostatic hypotension raises the possibility of hypovolemia. When vaginal speculum examination is performed, a cervical cause of abnormal bleeding may be noted. The presence of fresh or old blood or finding clots in the vaginal vault or at the cervical os are all consistent with AUB. A bimanual examination that reveals an enlarged or lobular uterus suggests leiomyoma or adenomyosis. Cervical or adnexal tenderness is often noted in women with PID, which itself may be associated with endometritis. The presence of hyperandrogenic signs on physical examination (eg, acne, hirsutism, or clitoromegaly) suggests PCOS. The finding of galactorrhea suggests that hyperprolactinemia may be present.

Laboratory assessment

Test for pregnancy, cervical disease, and sexually transmitted infection when appropriate. Pregnancy testing is appropriate for women with AUB aged 55 years or younger. If patients with AUB are not up to date with normal cervical cancer screening results, cervical cytology and/or human papillomavirus testing should be performed. Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis should be performed in patients:

• younger than 25 years
• when the history indicates new or multiple sexual partners, or
• when vaginal discharge, cervicitis, cervical motion, or adnexal tenderness is present.

Continue to: Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels...

Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels. In women presenting with HMB, iron depletion and iron deficiency anemia are common. The finding of leukocytosis raises the possibility of PID or postpartum endometritis. In women with presumptive AUB-O, checking the levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone, free T4, and prolactin should be performed.

Screen for a hemostasis disorder. Women with excessive menstrual bleeding should be clinically screened for an underlying disorder of hemostasis (TABLE 1).³ When a hemostasis disorder is suspected, initial laboratory evaluation includes a partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and fibrinogen. Women who have a positive clinical screen for a possible bleeding disorder or abnormal initial laboratory test results for disorders of hemostasis should undergo further laboratory evaluation, including von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and factor VIII. Consultation with a hematologist should be considered in these cases.

Perform endometrial biopsy when indicated

After excluding pregnancy, endometrial biopsy (through pipelle biospy or brush sampling; FIGURE 4) should be performed in women with AUB who are at increased risk for endometrial neoplasia. The prevalence of endometrial neoplasia is substantially higher among women ≥45 years of age⁴ and among patients with AUB who are also obese (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²).⁵ In addition, AUB patients with unopposed estrogen exposure (presumed anovulation/PCOS), as well as those with persistent AUB or failed medical management, should undergo endometrial biopsy.⁶

Utilize transvaginal ultrasonography

Transvaginal ultrasonography is often useful in the evaluation of patients with AUB, as it may identify uterine fibroids or adenomyosis, suggest intracavitary pathology (such as an endometrial polyp or submucosal fibroid), or raise the possibility of PCOS. In virginal patients or those in whom vaginal ultrasound is not appropriate, abdominal pelvic ultrasonography represents appropriate imaging. If unenhanced ultrasound suggests endometrial polyps or fibroids within the endometrial cavity, an office-based saline infusion sonogram (sonohysterogram) (FIGURE 5) or hysteroscopy should be performed. Targeted endometrial sampling and biopsy of intracavitary pathology can be performed at the time of hysteroscopy.

Treatment

When HMB impairs quality of life, is bothersome to the patient, or results in anemia, treatment is appropriate. Although bleeding episodes in women with AUB-O may be infrequent (as with Case 2), treatment prevents heavy or prolonged bleeding episodes as well as endometrial neoplasia that may otherwise occur in anovulatory women.

Many women with AUB can be managed medically. However, treatment choices will vary with respect to the patient’s desire for future fertility, medical comorbidities, personal preferences, and financial barriers. While many women may prefer outpatient medical management (TABLE 2),^7-14 others might desire surgical therapy, including endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.

Oral contraceptives

Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives represent appropriate initial therapy for many women in the reproductive-age group with AUB, whether women have HMB or AUB-O. However, contraceptive doses of estrogen are not appropriate for some women with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those who smoke cigarettes and are age ≥35 years or those who have hypertension (TABLE 3).^15,16

Continue to: Menopausal dosages of HT...

Menopausal dosages of HT

If use of contraceptive doses of estrogen is not appropriate, continuous off-label use of menopausal combination formulations (physiologic dosage) of hormonal therapy (HT; ie, lower doses of estrogen than contraceptives) may be effective in reducing or eliminating AUB. Options for menopausal combination formulations include generic ethinyl estradiol 5 µg/norethindrone acetate 1 mg or estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.⁷ High-dose oral progestin therapy (norethindrone acetate 5 mg tablet once daily or medroxyprogesterone acetate 10 mg tablets 1–3 times daily) also can be used when combination contraceptives are contraindicated and may be more effective than lower-dose combination formulations.

Package labeling, as well as some guidelines, indicate that oral progestins used to treat AUB should be taken cyclically.⁸ However, continuous daily use is easier for many patients and may be more effective in reducing bleeding. Accordingly, we counsel patients with AUB who are using progestins and who do not wish to conceive to take these medications continuously. High-dose oral progestin therapy may cause bloating, dysphoria, and increased appetite/weight gain. Women initiating hormonal management (including the progestin IUDs detailed below) for AUB should be counseled that irregular or even continuous light bleeding/spotting is common initially, but this bleeding pattern typically decreases with continued use.

IUDs

The LNG 52 mg IUD (Mirena or Liletta) effectively treats HMB, reducing bleeding in a manner comparable to that of endometrial ablation.^9,10 The Mirena IUD is approved for treatment of HMB in women desiring intrauterine contraception. In contrast to oral medications, use of progestin IUDs does not involve daily administration and may represent an attractive option for women with HMB who would like to avoid surgery or preserve fertility. With ongoing use, continuous oral or intrauterine hormonal management may result in amenorrhea in some women with AUB.

When the LNG 52 mg IUD is used to treat HMB, the menstrual suppression impact may begin to attenuate after approximately 4 years of use; in this setting, replacing the IUD often restores effective menstrual suppression.¹¹ The LNG 52 mg IUD effectively suppresses menses in women with coagulation disorders; if menstrual suppression with the progestin IUD is not adequate in this setting, it may be appropriate to add an oral combination estrogen-progestin contraceptive or high-dose oral progestin.^11,12

NSAIDs and tranexamic acid

Off-label use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (naproxen 500–1,000 mg daily for 5 days beginning at the onset of menstrual flow or tranexamic acid two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can suppress HMB and is useful for women who prefer to avoid or have contraindications to hormonal treatments.^13,14 Unfortunately, these agents are not as effective as hormonal management in treating AUB.

Iron supplementation is often needed

Iron depletion commonly results from HMB, often resulting in iron deficiency anemia. When iron depletion (readily identified by checking a serum ferritin level) or iron deficiency anemia is identified, iron supplementation should be recommended. Every-other-day administration of iron supplements maximizes iron absorption while minimizing the adverse effects of unabsorbed iron, such as nausea. Sixty mg of elemental iron (ferrous sulfate 325 mg) administered every other day represents an inexpensive and effective treatment for iron deficiency/anemia.¹⁷ In patients who cannot tolerate oral iron supplementation or for those in whom oral therapy is not appropriate or effective, newer intravenous iron formulations are safe and effective.¹⁸

Continue to: Case 1 Follow-up...

Case 1 Follow-up

The patient noted marked improvement in her menstrual cramps following LNG-containing IUD placement. Although she also reported that she no longer experienced heavy menstrual flow or cramps, she was bothered by frequent, unpredictable light bleeding/spotting. You prescribed norethindrone acetate (NETA) 5-mg tablet orally once daily, to be used in addition to her IUD. After using the IUD with concomitant NETA for 2 months’ duration, she noted that her bleeding/spotting almost completely resolved; however, she did report feeling irritable with use of the progestin tablets. She subsequently stopped the NETA tablets and, after 6 months of additional follow-up, reported only minimal spotting and no cramps.

At this later follow-up visit, you noted that her hemoglobin level increased to 12.6 g/dL, and the ferritin level no longer indicated iron depletion. After the IUD had been in place for 4 years, she reported that she was beginning to experience frequent light bleeding again. A follow-up vaginal sonogram noted a well-positioned IUD, there was no suggestion of intracavitary pathology, and adenomyosis continued to be imaged. She underwent IUD removal and placement of a new LNG 52 mg IUD. This resulted in marked reduction in her bleeding.

Case 2 Follow-up

Two weeks after beginning continuous oral progestin therapy, the patient called reporting frequent irregular bleeding. She was reassured that this was not unexpected and encouraged to continue oral progestin therapy. During a 3-month follow-up visit, the patient noted little, if any, bleeding over the previous 2 months and was pleased with this result. She continued to note acne and hirsutism and asked about the possibility of adding spironolactone to her oral progestin regimen.

Case 1 Multiparous woman presents with heavy regular menses

Over the past several years, a 34-year-old woman has noted increasing intensity and duration of menstrual flow, which now persists for 8 days and includes clots “the size of quarters” and soaks a pad within 1 hour. Sometimes she misses or leaves work on her heaviest days of flow. She reports that menstrual cramps prior to and during flow are increasingly bothersome and do not respond adequately to ibuprofen. She intermittently uses condoms for contraception. She does not wish to be pregnant currently; however, she recently entered into a new relationship and may wish to conceive in the future.

On bimanual examination, the uterus appears bulky. Her hemoglobin is 10.9 g/dL with low mean corpuscular volume and a serum ferritin level indicating iron depletion. Pelvic ultrasonography suggests uterine adenomyosis; no fibroids are imaged (FIGURE 1).

You advise the patient to take ferrous sulfate 325 mg every other day. After discussion with the patient regarding different treatment options, she chooses to proceed with placement of a 52-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD; Mirena or Liletta).

Case 2 Older adolescent presents with irregular bleeding

A 19-year-old patient reports approximately 6 bleeding episodes each year. She reports the duration of her bleeding as variable, and sometimes the bleeding is heavy with small clots passed. She has been previously diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives have been prescribed several times in the past, but she always has discontinued them due to nausea. The patient is in a same-sex relationship and does not anticipate being sexually active with a male. She reports having to shave her mustache and chin twice weekly for the past 1 to 2 years.

On physical examination, the patient is obese (body mass index [BMI], 32 kg/m²), facial acne and hirsutism are present, and hair extends from the mons toward the umbilicus. Bimanual examination reveals a normal size, mobile, nontender uterus without obvious adnexal pathology. Pelvic ultrasonography demonstrates a normal-appearing uterus with multiplanar endometrium (consistent with proliferative changes) (FIGURE 2). Ovarian imaging demonstrates ≥12 follicles per image (FIGURE 3).

About one-third of all women experience abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) sometime during their lifetime and AUB can impair quality of life.¹ Surgical management, including hysterectomy and endometrial ablation, plays an important role in the management of AUB in patients who do not desire future pregnancies. However, many cases of AUB occur in women who may not have completed childbearing or in women who prefer to avoid surgery.² AUB can be managed effectively medically in most cases.¹ Accordingly, in this review, we focus on nonsurgical management of AUB.

Continue to: Because previously used terms, including...

Because previously used terms, including menorrhagia and meno-metrorrhagia, were inconsistently defined and confusing, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics introduced updated terminology in 2011 to better describe and characterize AUB in nonpregnant women. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) refers to ovulatory (cyclic) bleeding that is more than 8 days’ duration, or sufficiently heavy to impair a woman’s quality of life. HMB is a pattern of AUB distinct from the irregular bleeding pattern typically caused by ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O).¹

Clinical evaluation

Obtain menstrual history. In addition to a medical, surgical, and gynecologic history, a thorough menstrual history should be obtained to further characterize the patient’s bleeding pattern. In contrast to the cyclical or ovulatory bleeding seen with HMB, bleeding associated with inconsistent ovulation (AUB-O) is unpredictable or irregular, and is commonly associated with PCOS. AUB-O is also encountered in recently menarchal girls (secondary to immaturity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis) and in those who are perimenopausal. In addition, medications that can induce hyperprolactinemia (such as certain antipsychotics) can cause AUB-O.

Evaluate for all sources of bleeding. Be sure to evaluate for extrauterine causes of bleeding, including the cervix, vagina, vulva, or the urinary or gastrointestinal tracts for bleeding. Intermenstrual bleeding occurring between normal regular menses may be caused by an endometrial polyp, submucosal fibroid, endometritis, or an IUD. The patient report of postcoital bleeding suggests that cervical disease (cervicitis, polyp, or malignancy) may be present. Uterine leiomyoma or adenomyosis represent common causes of HMB. However, HMB also may be caused by a copper IUD, coagulation disorders (including von Willebrand disease), or use of anticoagulant medications. Hormonal contraceptives also can cause irregular bleeding.

Perform a pelvic examination and measure vital signs. The presence of fever suggests the possible presence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), while orthostatic hypotension raises the possibility of hypovolemia. When vaginal speculum examination is performed, a cervical cause of abnormal bleeding may be noted. The presence of fresh or old blood or finding clots in the vaginal vault or at the cervical os are all consistent with AUB. A bimanual examination that reveals an enlarged or lobular uterus suggests leiomyoma or adenomyosis. Cervical or adnexal tenderness is often noted in women with PID, which itself may be associated with endometritis. The presence of hyperandrogenic signs on physical examination (eg, acne, hirsutism, or clitoromegaly) suggests PCOS. The finding of galactorrhea suggests that hyperprolactinemia may be present.

Laboratory assessment

Test for pregnancy, cervical disease, and sexually transmitted infection when appropriate. Pregnancy testing is appropriate for women with AUB aged 55 years or younger. If patients with AUB are not up to date with normal cervical cancer screening results, cervical cytology and/or human papillomavirus testing should be performed. Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis should be performed in patients:

• younger than 25 years
• when the history indicates new or multiple sexual partners, or
• when vaginal discharge, cervicitis, cervical motion, or adnexal tenderness is present.

Continue to: Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels...

Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels. In women presenting with HMB, iron depletion and iron deficiency anemia are common. The finding of leukocytosis raises the possibility of PID or postpartum endometritis. In women with presumptive AUB-O, checking the levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone, free T4, and prolactin should be performed.

Screen for a hemostasis disorder. Women with excessive menstrual bleeding should be clinically screened for an underlying disorder of hemostasis (TABLE 1).³ When a hemostasis disorder is suspected, initial laboratory evaluation includes a partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and fibrinogen. Women who have a positive clinical screen for a possible bleeding disorder or abnormal initial laboratory test results for disorders of hemostasis should undergo further laboratory evaluation, including von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and factor VIII. Consultation with a hematologist should be considered in these cases.

Perform endometrial biopsy when indicated

After excluding pregnancy, endometrial biopsy (through pipelle biospy or brush sampling; FIGURE 4) should be performed in women with AUB who are at increased risk for endometrial neoplasia. The prevalence of endometrial neoplasia is substantially higher among women ≥45 years of age⁴ and among patients with AUB who are also obese (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²).⁵ In addition, AUB patients with unopposed estrogen exposure (presumed anovulation/PCOS), as well as those with persistent AUB or failed medical management, should undergo endometrial biopsy.⁶

Utilize transvaginal ultrasonography

Transvaginal ultrasonography is often useful in the evaluation of patients with AUB, as it may identify uterine fibroids or adenomyosis, suggest intracavitary pathology (such as an endometrial polyp or submucosal fibroid), or raise the possibility of PCOS. In virginal patients or those in whom vaginal ultrasound is not appropriate, abdominal pelvic ultrasonography represents appropriate imaging. If unenhanced ultrasound suggests endometrial polyps or fibroids within the endometrial cavity, an office-based saline infusion sonogram (sonohysterogram) (FIGURE 5) or hysteroscopy should be performed. Targeted endometrial sampling and biopsy of intracavitary pathology can be performed at the time of hysteroscopy.

Treatment

When HMB impairs quality of life, is bothersome to the patient, or results in anemia, treatment is appropriate. Although bleeding episodes in women with AUB-O may be infrequent (as with Case 2), treatment prevents heavy or prolonged bleeding episodes as well as endometrial neoplasia that may otherwise occur in anovulatory women.

Many women with AUB can be managed medically. However, treatment choices will vary with respect to the patient’s desire for future fertility, medical comorbidities, personal preferences, and financial barriers. While many women may prefer outpatient medical management (TABLE 2),^7-14 others might desire surgical therapy, including endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.

Oral contraceptives

Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives represent appropriate initial therapy for many women in the reproductive-age group with AUB, whether women have HMB or AUB-O. However, contraceptive doses of estrogen are not appropriate for some women with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those who smoke cigarettes and are age ≥35 years or those who have hypertension (TABLE 3).^15,16

Continue to: Menopausal dosages of HT...

Menopausal dosages of HT

If use of contraceptive doses of estrogen is not appropriate, continuous off-label use of menopausal combination formulations (physiologic dosage) of hormonal therapy (HT; ie, lower doses of estrogen than contraceptives) may be effective in reducing or eliminating AUB. Options for menopausal combination formulations include generic ethinyl estradiol 5 µg/norethindrone acetate 1 mg or estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.⁷ High-dose oral progestin therapy (norethindrone acetate 5 mg tablet once daily or medroxyprogesterone acetate 10 mg tablets 1–3 times daily) also can be used when combination contraceptives are contraindicated and may be more effective than lower-dose combination formulations.

Package labeling, as well as some guidelines, indicate that oral progestins used to treat AUB should be taken cyclically.⁸ However, continuous daily use is easier for many patients and may be more effective in reducing bleeding. Accordingly, we counsel patients with AUB who are using progestins and who do not wish to conceive to take these medications continuously. High-dose oral progestin therapy may cause bloating, dysphoria, and increased appetite/weight gain. Women initiating hormonal management (including the progestin IUDs detailed below) for AUB should be counseled that irregular or even continuous light bleeding/spotting is common initially, but this bleeding pattern typically decreases with continued use.

IUDs

The LNG 52 mg IUD (Mirena or Liletta) effectively treats HMB, reducing bleeding in a manner comparable to that of endometrial ablation.^9,10 The Mirena IUD is approved for treatment of HMB in women desiring intrauterine contraception. In contrast to oral medications, use of progestin IUDs does not involve daily administration and may represent an attractive option for women with HMB who would like to avoid surgery or preserve fertility. With ongoing use, continuous oral or intrauterine hormonal management may result in amenorrhea in some women with AUB.

When the LNG 52 mg IUD is used to treat HMB, the menstrual suppression impact may begin to attenuate after approximately 4 years of use; in this setting, replacing the IUD often restores effective menstrual suppression.¹¹ The LNG 52 mg IUD effectively suppresses menses in women with coagulation disorders; if menstrual suppression with the progestin IUD is not adequate in this setting, it may be appropriate to add an oral combination estrogen-progestin contraceptive or high-dose oral progestin.^11,12

NSAIDs and tranexamic acid

Off-label use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (naproxen 500–1,000 mg daily for 5 days beginning at the onset of menstrual flow or tranexamic acid two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can suppress HMB and is useful for women who prefer to avoid or have contraindications to hormonal treatments.^13,14 Unfortunately, these agents are not as effective as hormonal management in treating AUB.

Iron supplementation is often needed

Iron depletion commonly results from HMB, often resulting in iron deficiency anemia. When iron depletion (readily identified by checking a serum ferritin level) or iron deficiency anemia is identified, iron supplementation should be recommended. Every-other-day administration of iron supplements maximizes iron absorption while minimizing the adverse effects of unabsorbed iron, such as nausea. Sixty mg of elemental iron (ferrous sulfate 325 mg) administered every other day represents an inexpensive and effective treatment for iron deficiency/anemia.¹⁷ In patients who cannot tolerate oral iron supplementation or for those in whom oral therapy is not appropriate or effective, newer intravenous iron formulations are safe and effective.¹⁸

Continue to: Case 1 Follow-up...

Case 1 Follow-up

The patient noted marked improvement in her menstrual cramps following LNG-containing IUD placement. Although she also reported that she no longer experienced heavy menstrual flow or cramps, she was bothered by frequent, unpredictable light bleeding/spotting. You prescribed norethindrone acetate (NETA) 5-mg tablet orally once daily, to be used in addition to her IUD. After using the IUD with concomitant NETA for 2 months’ duration, she noted that her bleeding/spotting almost completely resolved; however, she did report feeling irritable with use of the progestin tablets. She subsequently stopped the NETA tablets and, after 6 months of additional follow-up, reported only minimal spotting and no cramps.

At this later follow-up visit, you noted that her hemoglobin level increased to 12.6 g/dL, and the ferritin level no longer indicated iron depletion. After the IUD had been in place for 4 years, she reported that she was beginning to experience frequent light bleeding again. A follow-up vaginal sonogram noted a well-positioned IUD, there was no suggestion of intracavitary pathology, and adenomyosis continued to be imaged. She underwent IUD removal and placement of a new LNG 52 mg IUD. This resulted in marked reduction in her bleeding.

Case 2 Follow-up

Two weeks after beginning continuous oral progestin therapy, the patient called reporting frequent irregular bleeding. She was reassured that this was not unexpected and encouraged to continue oral progestin therapy. During a 3-month follow-up visit, the patient noted little, if any, bleeding over the previous 2 months and was pleased with this result. She continued to note acne and hirsutism and asked about the possibility of adding spironolactone to her oral progestin regimen.

Case 1 Multiparous woman presents with heavy regular menses

Over the past several years, a 34-year-old woman has noted increasing intensity and duration of menstrual flow, which now persists for 8 days and includes clots “the size of quarters” and soaks a pad within 1 hour. Sometimes she misses or leaves work on her heaviest days of flow. She reports that menstrual cramps prior to and during flow are increasingly bothersome and do not respond adequately to ibuprofen. She intermittently uses condoms for contraception. She does not wish to be pregnant currently; however, she recently entered into a new relationship and may wish to conceive in the future.

On bimanual examination, the uterus appears bulky. Her hemoglobin is 10.9 g/dL with low mean corpuscular volume and a serum ferritin level indicating iron depletion. Pelvic ultrasonography suggests uterine adenomyosis; no fibroids are imaged (FIGURE 1).

You advise the patient to take ferrous sulfate 325 mg every other day. After discussion with the patient regarding different treatment options, she chooses to proceed with placement of a 52-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD; Mirena or Liletta).

Case 2 Older adolescent presents with irregular bleeding

A 19-year-old patient reports approximately 6 bleeding episodes each year. She reports the duration of her bleeding as variable, and sometimes the bleeding is heavy with small clots passed. She has been previously diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives have been prescribed several times in the past, but she always has discontinued them due to nausea. The patient is in a same-sex relationship and does not anticipate being sexually active with a male. She reports having to shave her mustache and chin twice weekly for the past 1 to 2 years.

On physical examination, the patient is obese (body mass index [BMI], 32 kg/m²), facial acne and hirsutism are present, and hair extends from the mons toward the umbilicus. Bimanual examination reveals a normal size, mobile, nontender uterus without obvious adnexal pathology. Pelvic ultrasonography demonstrates a normal-appearing uterus with multiplanar endometrium (consistent with proliferative changes) (FIGURE 2). Ovarian imaging demonstrates ≥12 follicles per image (FIGURE 3).

About one-third of all women experience abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) sometime during their lifetime and AUB can impair quality of life.¹ Surgical management, including hysterectomy and endometrial ablation, plays an important role in the management of AUB in patients who do not desire future pregnancies. However, many cases of AUB occur in women who may not have completed childbearing or in women who prefer to avoid surgery.² AUB can be managed effectively medically in most cases.¹ Accordingly, in this review, we focus on nonsurgical management of AUB.

Continue to: Because previously used terms, including...

Because previously used terms, including menorrhagia and meno-metrorrhagia, were inconsistently defined and confusing, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics introduced updated terminology in 2011 to better describe and characterize AUB in nonpregnant women. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) refers to ovulatory (cyclic) bleeding that is more than 8 days’ duration, or sufficiently heavy to impair a woman’s quality of life. HMB is a pattern of AUB distinct from the irregular bleeding pattern typically caused by ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O).¹

Clinical evaluation

Obtain menstrual history. In addition to a medical, surgical, and gynecologic history, a thorough menstrual history should be obtained to further characterize the patient’s bleeding pattern. In contrast to the cyclical or ovulatory bleeding seen with HMB, bleeding associated with inconsistent ovulation (AUB-O) is unpredictable or irregular, and is commonly associated with PCOS. AUB-O is also encountered in recently menarchal girls (secondary to immaturity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis) and in those who are perimenopausal. In addition, medications that can induce hyperprolactinemia (such as certain antipsychotics) can cause AUB-O.

Evaluate for all sources of bleeding. Be sure to evaluate for extrauterine causes of bleeding, including the cervix, vagina, vulva, or the urinary or gastrointestinal tracts for bleeding. Intermenstrual bleeding occurring between normal regular menses may be caused by an endometrial polyp, submucosal fibroid, endometritis, or an IUD. The patient report of postcoital bleeding suggests that cervical disease (cervicitis, polyp, or malignancy) may be present. Uterine leiomyoma or adenomyosis represent common causes of HMB. However, HMB also may be caused by a copper IUD, coagulation disorders (including von Willebrand disease), or use of anticoagulant medications. Hormonal contraceptives also can cause irregular bleeding.

Perform a pelvic examination and measure vital signs. The presence of fever suggests the possible presence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), while orthostatic hypotension raises the possibility of hypovolemia. When vaginal speculum examination is performed, a cervical cause of abnormal bleeding may be noted. The presence of fresh or old blood or finding clots in the vaginal vault or at the cervical os are all consistent with AUB. A bimanual examination that reveals an enlarged or lobular uterus suggests leiomyoma or adenomyosis. Cervical or adnexal tenderness is often noted in women with PID, which itself may be associated with endometritis. The presence of hyperandrogenic signs on physical examination (eg, acne, hirsutism, or clitoromegaly) suggests PCOS. The finding of galactorrhea suggests that hyperprolactinemia may be present.

Laboratory assessment

Test for pregnancy, cervical disease, and sexually transmitted infection when appropriate. Pregnancy testing is appropriate for women with AUB aged 55 years or younger. If patients with AUB are not up to date with normal cervical cancer screening results, cervical cytology and/or human papillomavirus testing should be performed. Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis should be performed in patients:

• younger than 25 years
• when the history indicates new or multiple sexual partners, or
• when vaginal discharge, cervicitis, cervical motion, or adnexal tenderness is present.

Continue to: Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels...

Obtain a complete blood count and serum ferritin levels. In women presenting with HMB, iron depletion and iron deficiency anemia are common. The finding of leukocytosis raises the possibility of PID or postpartum endometritis. In women with presumptive AUB-O, checking the levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone, free T4, and prolactin should be performed.

Screen for a hemostasis disorder. Women with excessive menstrual bleeding should be clinically screened for an underlying disorder of hemostasis (TABLE 1).³ When a hemostasis disorder is suspected, initial laboratory evaluation includes a partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and fibrinogen. Women who have a positive clinical screen for a possible bleeding disorder or abnormal initial laboratory test results for disorders of hemostasis should undergo further laboratory evaluation, including von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and factor VIII. Consultation with a hematologist should be considered in these cases.

Perform endometrial biopsy when indicated

After excluding pregnancy, endometrial biopsy (through pipelle biospy or brush sampling; FIGURE 4) should be performed in women with AUB who are at increased risk for endometrial neoplasia. The prevalence of endometrial neoplasia is substantially higher among women ≥45 years of age⁴ and among patients with AUB who are also obese (BMI, ≥30 kg/m²).⁵ In addition, AUB patients with unopposed estrogen exposure (presumed anovulation/PCOS), as well as those with persistent AUB or failed medical management, should undergo endometrial biopsy.⁶

Utilize transvaginal ultrasonography

Transvaginal ultrasonography is often useful in the evaluation of patients with AUB, as it may identify uterine fibroids or adenomyosis, suggest intracavitary pathology (such as an endometrial polyp or submucosal fibroid), or raise the possibility of PCOS. In virginal patients or those in whom vaginal ultrasound is not appropriate, abdominal pelvic ultrasonography represents appropriate imaging. If unenhanced ultrasound suggests endometrial polyps or fibroids within the endometrial cavity, an office-based saline infusion sonogram (sonohysterogram) (FIGURE 5) or hysteroscopy should be performed. Targeted endometrial sampling and biopsy of intracavitary pathology can be performed at the time of hysteroscopy.

Treatment

When HMB impairs quality of life, is bothersome to the patient, or results in anemia, treatment is appropriate. Although bleeding episodes in women with AUB-O may be infrequent (as with Case 2), treatment prevents heavy or prolonged bleeding episodes as well as endometrial neoplasia that may otherwise occur in anovulatory women.

Many women with AUB can be managed medically. However, treatment choices will vary with respect to the patient’s desire for future fertility, medical comorbidities, personal preferences, and financial barriers. While many women may prefer outpatient medical management (TABLE 2),^7-14 others might desire surgical therapy, including endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.

Oral contraceptives

Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives represent appropriate initial therapy for many women in the reproductive-age group with AUB, whether women have HMB or AUB-O. However, contraceptive doses of estrogen are not appropriate for some women with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including those who smoke cigarettes and are age ≥35 years or those who have hypertension (TABLE 3).^15,16

Continue to: Menopausal dosages of HT...

Menopausal dosages of HT

If use of contraceptive doses of estrogen is not appropriate, continuous off-label use of menopausal combination formulations (physiologic dosage) of hormonal therapy (HT; ie, lower doses of estrogen than contraceptives) may be effective in reducing or eliminating AUB. Options for menopausal combination formulations include generic ethinyl estradiol 5 µg/norethindrone acetate 1 mg or estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.⁷ High-dose oral progestin therapy (norethindrone acetate 5 mg tablet once daily or medroxyprogesterone acetate 10 mg tablets 1–3 times daily) also can be used when combination contraceptives are contraindicated and may be more effective than lower-dose combination formulations.

Package labeling, as well as some guidelines, indicate that oral progestins used to treat AUB should be taken cyclically.⁸ However, continuous daily use is easier for many patients and may be more effective in reducing bleeding. Accordingly, we counsel patients with AUB who are using progestins and who do not wish to conceive to take these medications continuously. High-dose oral progestin therapy may cause bloating, dysphoria, and increased appetite/weight gain. Women initiating hormonal management (including the progestin IUDs detailed below) for AUB should be counseled that irregular or even continuous light bleeding/spotting is common initially, but this bleeding pattern typically decreases with continued use.

IUDs

The LNG 52 mg IUD (Mirena or Liletta) effectively treats HMB, reducing bleeding in a manner comparable to that of endometrial ablation.^9,10 The Mirena IUD is approved for treatment of HMB in women desiring intrauterine contraception. In contrast to oral medications, use of progestin IUDs does not involve daily administration and may represent an attractive option for women with HMB who would like to avoid surgery or preserve fertility. With ongoing use, continuous oral or intrauterine hormonal management may result in amenorrhea in some women with AUB.

When the LNG 52 mg IUD is used to treat HMB, the menstrual suppression impact may begin to attenuate after approximately 4 years of use; in this setting, replacing the IUD often restores effective menstrual suppression.¹¹ The LNG 52 mg IUD effectively suppresses menses in women with coagulation disorders; if menstrual suppression with the progestin IUD is not adequate in this setting, it may be appropriate to add an oral combination estrogen-progestin contraceptive or high-dose oral progestin.^11,12

NSAIDs and tranexamic acid

Off-label use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (naproxen 500–1,000 mg daily for 5 days beginning at the onset of menstrual flow or tranexamic acid two 650-mg tablets 3 times daily for up to 5 days during episodes of heavy flow) can suppress HMB and is useful for women who prefer to avoid or have contraindications to hormonal treatments.^13,14 Unfortunately, these agents are not as effective as hormonal management in treating AUB.

Iron supplementation is often needed

Iron depletion commonly results from HMB, often resulting in iron deficiency anemia. When iron depletion (readily identified by checking a serum ferritin level) or iron deficiency anemia is identified, iron supplementation should be recommended. Every-other-day administration of iron supplements maximizes iron absorption while minimizing the adverse effects of unabsorbed iron, such as nausea. Sixty mg of elemental iron (ferrous sulfate 325 mg) administered every other day represents an inexpensive and effective treatment for iron deficiency/anemia.¹⁷ In patients who cannot tolerate oral iron supplementation or for those in whom oral therapy is not appropriate or effective, newer intravenous iron formulations are safe and effective.¹⁸

Continue to: Case 1 Follow-up...

Case 1 Follow-up

The patient noted marked improvement in her menstrual cramps following LNG-containing IUD placement. Although she also reported that she no longer experienced heavy menstrual flow or cramps, she was bothered by frequent, unpredictable light bleeding/spotting. You prescribed norethindrone acetate (NETA) 5-mg tablet orally once daily, to be used in addition to her IUD. After using the IUD with concomitant NETA for 2 months’ duration, she noted that her bleeding/spotting almost completely resolved; however, she did report feeling irritable with use of the progestin tablets. She subsequently stopped the NETA tablets and, after 6 months of additional follow-up, reported only minimal spotting and no cramps.

At this later follow-up visit, you noted that her hemoglobin level increased to 12.6 g/dL, and the ferritin level no longer indicated iron depletion. After the IUD had been in place for 4 years, she reported that she was beginning to experience frequent light bleeding again. A follow-up vaginal sonogram noted a well-positioned IUD, there was no suggestion of intracavitary pathology, and adenomyosis continued to be imaged. She underwent IUD removal and placement of a new LNG 52 mg IUD. This resulted in marked reduction in her bleeding.

Case 2 Follow-up

Two weeks after beginning continuous oral progestin therapy, the patient called reporting frequent irregular bleeding. She was reassured that this was not unexpected and encouraged to continue oral progestin therapy. During a 3-month follow-up visit, the patient noted little, if any, bleeding over the previous 2 months and was pleased with this result. She continued to note acne and hirsutism and asked about the possibility of adding spironolactone to her oral progestin regimen.

In a US study of more than 17,000 people, overt hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were detected in about 4.6% and 1.3% of adults, respectively.¹ In this population-based study, thyroid disease was 5 times more prevalent among women than among men. In our ObGyn practices, there are many women of reproductive age with thyroid disease who are considering pregnancy. Treatment of active hyperthyroidism in a woman planning pregnancy is complex and best managed by endocrinologists. Treatment of hypothyroidism is more straightforward, however, and typically managed by internists, family medicine clinicians, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

Clinical management of hypothyroidism and pregnancy

Pregnancy results in a doubling of thyroxine-binding globulin (TBG) levels and a 40% increase in plasma volume, resulting in a need for more thyroxine production.² Of note, from conception to approximately 13 weeks’ gestation, the sole source of embryonic and fetal thyroid hormones is from the mother.² Women who have been taking chronic thyroxine treatment may have suppressed thyroid gland activity and be unable to increase thyroxine production in response to pregnancy, necessitating a 30% to 50% increase in their thyroxine dose to maintain TSH levels in the normal range.

For hypothyroid women on long-term thyroxine treatment, recommend increasing the thyroxine dose when pregnancy is recognized. For your patients on chronic thyroxine treatment who are planning a pregnancy, a multiprong approach is helpful in preparing the patient for the increased thyroxine requirements of early pregnancy. First, it is important to counsel the woman that she should not stop the thyroxine medication because it may adversely affect the pregnancy. In my experience, most cases of overt hypothyroidism during pregnancy occur because the patient stopped taking her thyroxine therapy. Second, for hypothyroid women who are considering conception it is reasonable to adjust the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration in the lower range of normal (0.5 to 2.5 mU/L). This will give the woman a “buffer,” reducing the risk that in early pregnancy she and her fetus will have a thyroxine deficit. Third, in early pregnancy, following detection of a positive pregnancy test, your patient can start to increase her thyroxine dose by about two tablets weekly (a 28% increase in the dose). Fourth, TSH levels can be measured every 4 weeks during the first trimester, with appropriate adjustment of the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration below the trimester-specific upper limit of normal (< 4 mU/L).²

TSH and free thyroxine measurements identify women with overt hypothyroidism who need thyroxine treatment. Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes, including decreased fertility, increased spontaneous abortion, increased fetal loss, and preterm birth.^2,3 Hence it is important to immediately initiate thyroxine treatment in pregnant women who have overt hypothyroidism. A diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism is indicated in women with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary axis and a TSH level ≥10 mU/L plus a low free thyroxine concentration. A TSH level of >4 to 10 mU/L, with normal free thyroxine concentration, is evidence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH). Among women, there are about 5 times more cases of SCH than overt hypothyroidism.

Continue to: The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy...

The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy is vast, and often contradictory, leading to confusion among clinicians. Contributing to the confusion is that some observational studies report a modest association between SCH and adverse pregnancy outcomes. To date, however, randomized clinical trials show no benefit of thyroxine treatment in these cases. I explore these contradictory pieces of evidence below.

Is SCH associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes due to low thyroxine levels?

There is conflicting literature about the association of SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes. A meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with SCH and euthyroid women (normal TSH and normal free thyroxine levels) was 6.1% and 5.0%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01–1.64).⁴ Interestingly, pregnant women with normal TSH levels but a low free thyroxine level also had an increased rate of preterm birth (7.1% vs 5.0%; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12–1.90).

Although observational studies report an association between SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes, multiple randomized clinical trials conducted in women with SCH or hypothyroxinemia have failed to demonstrate that thyroxine replacement improves reproductive outcomes. For example, in a study of 794 pregnant women with elevated TSH and/or low free thyroxine levels randomly assigned to thyroxine treatment (0.15 mg daily) or no treatment, there was no difference in preterm birth rate (5.6% vs 7.9%, P = .2), mean birth weight (3.5 kg vs 3.3 kg, P = .15), gestational age at delivery (40.1 vs 40.2 weeks, P = .10), or the intelligence quotient of children at 3 years (99 vs 100, P = .40).⁵

In another study, 674 pregnant women with mild SCH (mean TSH, 4.4 mU/L) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (0.1 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal TSH level) or placebo. In this study there was no difference between the thyroxine treatment or placebo groups in preterm birth rate (9% vs 11%, P = .44), gestational age at delivery (39.1 vs 38.9 weeks, P = .57) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (97 and 94, P = .71).⁶

The same investigators also randomized 524 pregnant women with isolated hypothyroxinema (mean free thyroxine level, 0.83 ng/dL) and normal TSH level (mean, 1.5 mU/L) to thyroxine (0.05 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal free thyroxine level) or placebo.⁶ In this study there was no difference in preterm birth rate (12% vs 8%, P = .11), gestational age at delivery (39.0 vs 38.8 weeks, P = .46) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (94 and 91, P = .31).⁶

When large randomized clinical trials and observational studies report discrepant results, many authorities prioritize the findings from the randomized clinical trials because those results are less prone to being confounded by unrecognized factors. Randomized trials do not demonstrate that mild SCH or isolated hypothyroxinemia have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes.

Thyroid antibodies, fertility, miscarriage, and preterm birth

Some observational studies report that the presence of thyroid antibodies in a euthyroid woman reduces fecundity and increases the risk for miscarriage and preterm birth. For example, a meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with and without antithyroid antibodies was 6.9% and 4.9%, respectively (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.56). However, in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, low-dose thyroxine therapy has not been shown to improve fertility, or reduce miscarriages or preterm birth rate.

Continue to: In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women...

In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women (normal TSH level; range, 0.44 to 3.63 mIU/L and free thyroxine level; range, 10 to 21 pmol/L) who were planning on conceiving and had elevated thyroid peroxidase antibodies were randomized prior to conception to receive either thyroxine (50 µg) or placebo.⁷ After 12 months, outcomes were similar for women treated with thyroxine or placebo, including live birth rate (37.4% vs 37.9%), miscarriage rate for those who became pregnant (28.2% vs 29.6%), and preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation (3.8% vs 3.6%, respectively).⁷ The investigators concluded that the use of low-dose thyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies was not effective for increasing the rate of live birth or reducing the rate of miscarriage or early preterm birth.

Thyroid antibodies and the rate of IVF pregnancy and miscarriage

Some observational studies suggest that the presence of antithyroid antibodies may be associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.⁸ To test the effects of thyroxine treatment on the rate of miscarriage in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, 600 euthyroid infertile women with antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase levels ≥ 60 IU/mL) scheduled to have in vitro fertilization (IVF) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (dose adjustment to keep TSH levels in the range of 0.1 to 2.5 mIU/L) or no treatment.⁹ The thyroxine treatment was initiated 2 to 4 weeks before initiation of ovarian stimulation. In this study, treatment with thyroxine or no treatment resulted in similar rates of clinical pregnancy (35.7% vs 37.7%) and live birth (31.7% vs 32.3%).⁹ Among the women who achieved a clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rates were similar in the thyroxine and no treatment groups (10.3% vs 10.6%).⁹

Let’s focus on more serious problems that affect pregnancy

There is a clear consensus that women with overt hypothyroidism should be treated with thyroxine prior to attempting pregnancy.^2,6 There is no clear consensus about how to treat women considering pregnancy who have one isolated laboratory finding, such as mild subclinical hypothyroidism, mild isolated hypothyroxinemia, or antithyroid antibodies. Given the lack of evidence from randomized trials that thyroxine improves pregnancy outcomes in these cases, obstetrician-gynecologists may want to either refer women with these problems to an endocrinologist for consultation or sequentially measure laboratory values to assess whether the patient’s laboratory abnormality is transient, stable, or worsening.

Obstetrician-gynecologists and their patients are confronted by many serious problems that adversely affect pregnancy and deserve priority attention, including iron deficiency anemia, excess gestational weight gain, peripartum depression, intimate partner violence, housing insecurity, cigarette smoking, substance misuse, chronic hypertension, morbid obesity, diabetes, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, obstetrical hemorrhage, sepsis, and infectious diseases. Given limited resources our expertise should be focused on these major obstetric public health problems rather than screening for mild subclinical hypothyroidism.

In a US study of more than 17,000 people, overt hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were detected in about 4.6% and 1.3% of adults, respectively.¹ In this population-based study, thyroid disease was 5 times more prevalent among women than among men. In our ObGyn practices, there are many women of reproductive age with thyroid disease who are considering pregnancy. Treatment of active hyperthyroidism in a woman planning pregnancy is complex and best managed by endocrinologists. Treatment of hypothyroidism is more straightforward, however, and typically managed by internists, family medicine clinicians, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

Clinical management of hypothyroidism and pregnancy

Pregnancy results in a doubling of thyroxine-binding globulin (TBG) levels and a 40% increase in plasma volume, resulting in a need for more thyroxine production.² Of note, from conception to approximately 13 weeks’ gestation, the sole source of embryonic and fetal thyroid hormones is from the mother.² Women who have been taking chronic thyroxine treatment may have suppressed thyroid gland activity and be unable to increase thyroxine production in response to pregnancy, necessitating a 30% to 50% increase in their thyroxine dose to maintain TSH levels in the normal range.

For hypothyroid women on long-term thyroxine treatment, recommend increasing the thyroxine dose when pregnancy is recognized. For your patients on chronic thyroxine treatment who are planning a pregnancy, a multiprong approach is helpful in preparing the patient for the increased thyroxine requirements of early pregnancy. First, it is important to counsel the woman that she should not stop the thyroxine medication because it may adversely affect the pregnancy. In my experience, most cases of overt hypothyroidism during pregnancy occur because the patient stopped taking her thyroxine therapy. Second, for hypothyroid women who are considering conception it is reasonable to adjust the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration in the lower range of normal (0.5 to 2.5 mU/L). This will give the woman a “buffer,” reducing the risk that in early pregnancy she and her fetus will have a thyroxine deficit. Third, in early pregnancy, following detection of a positive pregnancy test, your patient can start to increase her thyroxine dose by about two tablets weekly (a 28% increase in the dose). Fourth, TSH levels can be measured every 4 weeks during the first trimester, with appropriate adjustment of the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration below the trimester-specific upper limit of normal (< 4 mU/L).²

TSH and free thyroxine measurements identify women with overt hypothyroidism who need thyroxine treatment. Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes, including decreased fertility, increased spontaneous abortion, increased fetal loss, and preterm birth.^2,3 Hence it is important to immediately initiate thyroxine treatment in pregnant women who have overt hypothyroidism. A diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism is indicated in women with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary axis and a TSH level ≥10 mU/L plus a low free thyroxine concentration. A TSH level of >4 to 10 mU/L, with normal free thyroxine concentration, is evidence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH). Among women, there are about 5 times more cases of SCH than overt hypothyroidism.

Continue to: The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy...

The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy is vast, and often contradictory, leading to confusion among clinicians. Contributing to the confusion is that some observational studies report a modest association between SCH and adverse pregnancy outcomes. To date, however, randomized clinical trials show no benefit of thyroxine treatment in these cases. I explore these contradictory pieces of evidence below.

Is SCH associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes due to low thyroxine levels?

There is conflicting literature about the association of SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes. A meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with SCH and euthyroid women (normal TSH and normal free thyroxine levels) was 6.1% and 5.0%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01–1.64).⁴ Interestingly, pregnant women with normal TSH levels but a low free thyroxine level also had an increased rate of preterm birth (7.1% vs 5.0%; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12–1.90).

Although observational studies report an association between SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes, multiple randomized clinical trials conducted in women with SCH or hypothyroxinemia have failed to demonstrate that thyroxine replacement improves reproductive outcomes. For example, in a study of 794 pregnant women with elevated TSH and/or low free thyroxine levels randomly assigned to thyroxine treatment (0.15 mg daily) or no treatment, there was no difference in preterm birth rate (5.6% vs 7.9%, P = .2), mean birth weight (3.5 kg vs 3.3 kg, P = .15), gestational age at delivery (40.1 vs 40.2 weeks, P = .10), or the intelligence quotient of children at 3 years (99 vs 100, P = .40).⁵

In another study, 674 pregnant women with mild SCH (mean TSH, 4.4 mU/L) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (0.1 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal TSH level) or placebo. In this study there was no difference between the thyroxine treatment or placebo groups in preterm birth rate (9% vs 11%, P = .44), gestational age at delivery (39.1 vs 38.9 weeks, P = .57) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (97 and 94, P = .71).⁶

The same investigators also randomized 524 pregnant women with isolated hypothyroxinema (mean free thyroxine level, 0.83 ng/dL) and normal TSH level (mean, 1.5 mU/L) to thyroxine (0.05 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal free thyroxine level) or placebo.⁶ In this study there was no difference in preterm birth rate (12% vs 8%, P = .11), gestational age at delivery (39.0 vs 38.8 weeks, P = .46) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (94 and 91, P = .31).⁶

When large randomized clinical trials and observational studies report discrepant results, many authorities prioritize the findings from the randomized clinical trials because those results are less prone to being confounded by unrecognized factors. Randomized trials do not demonstrate that mild SCH or isolated hypothyroxinemia have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes.

Thyroid antibodies, fertility, miscarriage, and preterm birth

Some observational studies report that the presence of thyroid antibodies in a euthyroid woman reduces fecundity and increases the risk for miscarriage and preterm birth. For example, a meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with and without antithyroid antibodies was 6.9% and 4.9%, respectively (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.56). However, in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, low-dose thyroxine therapy has not been shown to improve fertility, or reduce miscarriages or preterm birth rate.

Continue to: In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women...

In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women (normal TSH level; range, 0.44 to 3.63 mIU/L and free thyroxine level; range, 10 to 21 pmol/L) who were planning on conceiving and had elevated thyroid peroxidase antibodies were randomized prior to conception to receive either thyroxine (50 µg) or placebo.⁷ After 12 months, outcomes were similar for women treated with thyroxine or placebo, including live birth rate (37.4% vs 37.9%), miscarriage rate for those who became pregnant (28.2% vs 29.6%), and preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation (3.8% vs 3.6%, respectively).⁷ The investigators concluded that the use of low-dose thyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies was not effective for increasing the rate of live birth or reducing the rate of miscarriage or early preterm birth.

Thyroid antibodies and the rate of IVF pregnancy and miscarriage

Some observational studies suggest that the presence of antithyroid antibodies may be associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.⁸ To test the effects of thyroxine treatment on the rate of miscarriage in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, 600 euthyroid infertile women with antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase levels ≥ 60 IU/mL) scheduled to have in vitro fertilization (IVF) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (dose adjustment to keep TSH levels in the range of 0.1 to 2.5 mIU/L) or no treatment.⁹ The thyroxine treatment was initiated 2 to 4 weeks before initiation of ovarian stimulation. In this study, treatment with thyroxine or no treatment resulted in similar rates of clinical pregnancy (35.7% vs 37.7%) and live birth (31.7% vs 32.3%).⁹ Among the women who achieved a clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rates were similar in the thyroxine and no treatment groups (10.3% vs 10.6%).⁹

Let’s focus on more serious problems that affect pregnancy

There is a clear consensus that women with overt hypothyroidism should be treated with thyroxine prior to attempting pregnancy.^2,6 There is no clear consensus about how to treat women considering pregnancy who have one isolated laboratory finding, such as mild subclinical hypothyroidism, mild isolated hypothyroxinemia, or antithyroid antibodies. Given the lack of evidence from randomized trials that thyroxine improves pregnancy outcomes in these cases, obstetrician-gynecologists may want to either refer women with these problems to an endocrinologist for consultation or sequentially measure laboratory values to assess whether the patient’s laboratory abnormality is transient, stable, or worsening.

Obstetrician-gynecologists and their patients are confronted by many serious problems that adversely affect pregnancy and deserve priority attention, including iron deficiency anemia, excess gestational weight gain, peripartum depression, intimate partner violence, housing insecurity, cigarette smoking, substance misuse, chronic hypertension, morbid obesity, diabetes, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, obstetrical hemorrhage, sepsis, and infectious diseases. Given limited resources our expertise should be focused on these major obstetric public health problems rather than screening for mild subclinical hypothyroidism.

In a US study of more than 17,000 people, overt hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were detected in about 4.6% and 1.3% of adults, respectively.¹ In this population-based study, thyroid disease was 5 times more prevalent among women than among men. In our ObGyn practices, there are many women of reproductive age with thyroid disease who are considering pregnancy. Treatment of active hyperthyroidism in a woman planning pregnancy is complex and best managed by endocrinologists. Treatment of hypothyroidism is more straightforward, however, and typically managed by internists, family medicine clinicians, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

Clinical management of hypothyroidism and pregnancy

Pregnancy results in a doubling of thyroxine-binding globulin (TBG) levels and a 40% increase in plasma volume, resulting in a need for more thyroxine production.² Of note, from conception to approximately 13 weeks’ gestation, the sole source of embryonic and fetal thyroid hormones is from the mother.² Women who have been taking chronic thyroxine treatment may have suppressed thyroid gland activity and be unable to increase thyroxine production in response to pregnancy, necessitating a 30% to 50% increase in their thyroxine dose to maintain TSH levels in the normal range.

For hypothyroid women on long-term thyroxine treatment, recommend increasing the thyroxine dose when pregnancy is recognized. For your patients on chronic thyroxine treatment who are planning a pregnancy, a multiprong approach is helpful in preparing the patient for the increased thyroxine requirements of early pregnancy. First, it is important to counsel the woman that she should not stop the thyroxine medication because it may adversely affect the pregnancy. In my experience, most cases of overt hypothyroidism during pregnancy occur because the patient stopped taking her thyroxine therapy. Second, for hypothyroid women who are considering conception it is reasonable to adjust the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration in the lower range of normal (0.5 to 2.5 mU/L). This will give the woman a “buffer,” reducing the risk that in early pregnancy she and her fetus will have a thyroxine deficit. Third, in early pregnancy, following detection of a positive pregnancy test, your patient can start to increase her thyroxine dose by about two tablets weekly (a 28% increase in the dose). Fourth, TSH levels can be measured every 4 weeks during the first trimester, with appropriate adjustment of the thyroxine dose to keep the TSH concentration below the trimester-specific upper limit of normal (< 4 mU/L).²

TSH and free thyroxine measurements identify women with overt hypothyroidism who need thyroxine treatment. Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes, including decreased fertility, increased spontaneous abortion, increased fetal loss, and preterm birth.^2,3 Hence it is important to immediately initiate thyroxine treatment in pregnant women who have overt hypothyroidism. A diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism is indicated in women with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary axis and a TSH level ≥10 mU/L plus a low free thyroxine concentration. A TSH level of >4 to 10 mU/L, with normal free thyroxine concentration, is evidence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH). Among women, there are about 5 times more cases of SCH than overt hypothyroidism.

Continue to: The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy...

The literature concerning SCH and pregnancy is vast, and often contradictory, leading to confusion among clinicians. Contributing to the confusion is that some observational studies report a modest association between SCH and adverse pregnancy outcomes. To date, however, randomized clinical trials show no benefit of thyroxine treatment in these cases. I explore these contradictory pieces of evidence below.

Is SCH associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes due to low thyroxine levels?

There is conflicting literature about the association of SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes. A meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with SCH and euthyroid women (normal TSH and normal free thyroxine levels) was 6.1% and 5.0%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01–1.64).⁴ Interestingly, pregnant women with normal TSH levels but a low free thyroxine level also had an increased rate of preterm birth (7.1% vs 5.0%; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12–1.90).

Although observational studies report an association between SCH and adverse reproductive outcomes, multiple randomized clinical trials conducted in women with SCH or hypothyroxinemia have failed to demonstrate that thyroxine replacement improves reproductive outcomes. For example, in a study of 794 pregnant women with elevated TSH and/or low free thyroxine levels randomly assigned to thyroxine treatment (0.15 mg daily) or no treatment, there was no difference in preterm birth rate (5.6% vs 7.9%, P = .2), mean birth weight (3.5 kg vs 3.3 kg, P = .15), gestational age at delivery (40.1 vs 40.2 weeks, P = .10), or the intelligence quotient of children at 3 years (99 vs 100, P = .40).⁵

In another study, 674 pregnant women with mild SCH (mean TSH, 4.4 mU/L) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (0.1 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal TSH level) or placebo. In this study there was no difference between the thyroxine treatment or placebo groups in preterm birth rate (9% vs 11%, P = .44), gestational age at delivery (39.1 vs 38.9 weeks, P = .57) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (97 and 94, P = .71).⁶

The same investigators also randomized 524 pregnant women with isolated hypothyroxinema (mean free thyroxine level, 0.83 ng/dL) and normal TSH level (mean, 1.5 mU/L) to thyroxine (0.05 mg daily and dose adjusted to achieve a normal free thyroxine level) or placebo.⁶ In this study there was no difference in preterm birth rate (12% vs 8%, P = .11), gestational age at delivery (39.0 vs 38.8 weeks, P = .46) or intelligence quotient of children at 5 years (94 and 91, P = .31).⁶

When large randomized clinical trials and observational studies report discrepant results, many authorities prioritize the findings from the randomized clinical trials because those results are less prone to being confounded by unrecognized factors. Randomized trials do not demonstrate that mild SCH or isolated hypothyroxinemia have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes.

Thyroid antibodies, fertility, miscarriage, and preterm birth

Some observational studies report that the presence of thyroid antibodies in a euthyroid woman reduces fecundity and increases the risk for miscarriage and preterm birth. For example, a meta-analysis of 47,045 pregnant women reported that the preterm birth rate for women with and without antithyroid antibodies was 6.9% and 4.9%, respectively (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.56). However, in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, low-dose thyroxine therapy has not been shown to improve fertility, or reduce miscarriages or preterm birth rate.

Continue to: In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women...

In a large randomized clinical trial, 952 euthyroid women (normal TSH level; range, 0.44 to 3.63 mIU/L and free thyroxine level; range, 10 to 21 pmol/L) who were planning on conceiving and had elevated thyroid peroxidase antibodies were randomized prior to conception to receive either thyroxine (50 µg) or placebo.⁷ After 12 months, outcomes were similar for women treated with thyroxine or placebo, including live birth rate (37.4% vs 37.9%), miscarriage rate for those who became pregnant (28.2% vs 29.6%), and preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation (3.8% vs 3.6%, respectively).⁷ The investigators concluded that the use of low-dose thyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies was not effective for increasing the rate of live birth or reducing the rate of miscarriage or early preterm birth.

Thyroid antibodies and the rate of IVF pregnancy and miscarriage

Some observational studies suggest that the presence of antithyroid antibodies may be associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.⁸ To test the effects of thyroxine treatment on the rate of miscarriage in euthyroid women with antithyroid antibodies, 600 euthyroid infertile women with antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase levels ≥ 60 IU/mL) scheduled to have in vitro fertilization (IVF) were randomly assigned to receive thyroxine (dose adjustment to keep TSH levels in the range of 0.1 to 2.5 mIU/L) or no treatment.⁹ The thyroxine treatment was initiated 2 to 4 weeks before initiation of ovarian stimulation. In this study, treatment with thyroxine or no treatment resulted in similar rates of clinical pregnancy (35.7% vs 37.7%) and live birth (31.7% vs 32.3%).⁹ Among the women who achieved a clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rates were similar in the thyroxine and no treatment groups (10.3% vs 10.6%).⁹

Let’s focus on more serious problems that affect pregnancy

There is a clear consensus that women with overt hypothyroidism should be treated with thyroxine prior to attempting pregnancy.^2,6 There is no clear consensus about how to treat women considering pregnancy who have one isolated laboratory finding, such as mild subclinical hypothyroidism, mild isolated hypothyroxinemia, or antithyroid antibodies. Given the lack of evidence from randomized trials that thyroxine improves pregnancy outcomes in these cases, obstetrician-gynecologists may want to either refer women with these problems to an endocrinologist for consultation or sequentially measure laboratory values to assess whether the patient’s laboratory abnormality is transient, stable, or worsening.

Obstetrician-gynecologists and their patients are confronted by many serious problems that adversely affect pregnancy and deserve priority attention, including iron deficiency anemia, excess gestational weight gain, peripartum depression, intimate partner violence, housing insecurity, cigarette smoking, substance misuse, chronic hypertension, morbid obesity, diabetes, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, obstetrical hemorrhage, sepsis, and infectious diseases. Given limited resources our expertise should be focused on these major obstetric public health problems rather than screening for mild subclinical hypothyroidism.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.

“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.

Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.

A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.

The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.

Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.

Key clinical point: ARMSS-rate at 2 years accurately predicts disease course over the subsequent 8 years.

Major finding: ARMSS-rate at 2 years had an area under the curve of 0.921 for predicting the next 8 years of ARMSS-rate.

Study details: An analysis of data for 4,514 participants in the Swedish MS Registry.

Disclosures: Dr. Ramanujam had no conflicts of interest to disclose. He receives funding from the MultipleMS Project, which is part of the EU Horizon 2020 Framework.

Citation: Manouchehrinia A et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract 218.

Key clinical point: ARMSS-rate at 2 years accurately predicts disease course over the subsequent 8 years.

Major finding: ARMSS-rate at 2 years had an area under the curve of 0.921 for predicting the next 8 years of ARMSS-rate.

Study details: An analysis of data for 4,514 participants in the Swedish MS Registry.

Disclosures: Dr. Ramanujam had no conflicts of interest to disclose. He receives funding from the MultipleMS Project, which is part of the EU Horizon 2020 Framework.

Citation: Manouchehrinia A et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract 218.

Key clinical point: ARMSS-rate at 2 years accurately predicts disease course over the subsequent 8 years.

Major finding: ARMSS-rate at 2 years had an area under the curve of 0.921 for predicting the next 8 years of ARMSS-rate.

Study details: An analysis of data for 4,514 participants in the Swedish MS Registry.

Disclosures: Dr. Ramanujam had no conflicts of interest to disclose. He receives funding from the MultipleMS Project, which is part of the EU Horizon 2020 Framework.

Citation: Manouchehrinia A et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract 218.

Key clinical point: Patients with MS who quit smoking tobacco may experience improved cognitive function.

Major finding: Former smokers with MS scored an average of 3.6 points lower on the Processing Speed Test than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 997 patients with MS who had cognitive function test scores and brain MRIs.

Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no relevant financial interests.

Citation: Alshehri E et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract P461.

Key clinical point: Patients with MS who quit smoking tobacco may experience improved cognitive function.

Major finding: Former smokers with MS scored an average of 3.6 points lower on the Processing Speed Test than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 997 patients with MS who had cognitive function test scores and brain MRIs.

Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no relevant financial interests.

Citation: Alshehri E et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract P461.

Key clinical point: Patients with MS who quit smoking tobacco may experience improved cognitive function.

Major finding: Former smokers with MS scored an average of 3.6 points lower on the Processing Speed Test than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 997 patients with MS who had cognitive function test scores and brain MRIs.

Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no relevant financial interests.

Citation: Alshehri E et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract P461.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory pulmonary events occurring at age 11-15 years may be a risk factor for subsequent multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: Swedes who experienced pneumonia at age 11-15 years had an adjusted 2.8-fold increased risk of MS later in life.

Study details: This Swedish national registry cohort study included 6,109 MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale.

Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.

Citation: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory pulmonary events occurring at age 11-15 years may be a risk factor for subsequent multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: Swedes who experienced pneumonia at age 11-15 years had an adjusted 2.8-fold increased risk of MS later in life.

Study details: This Swedish national registry cohort study included 6,109 MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale.

Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.

Citation: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.

Key clinical point: Inflammatory pulmonary events occurring at age 11-15 years may be a risk factor for subsequent multiple sclerosis.

Major finding: Swedes who experienced pneumonia at age 11-15 years had an adjusted 2.8-fold increased risk of MS later in life.

Study details: This Swedish national registry cohort study included 6,109 MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale.

Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.

Citation: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.

Background: Prior studies have shown multifaceted interventions that include EHR prompts can reduce the utilization of telemetry monitoring, but it is unclear if EHR prompts alone can reduce utilization.

Dr. Biddick is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine Harvard Medical School.

Background: Prior studies have shown multifaceted interventions that include EHR prompts can reduce the utilization of telemetry monitoring, but it is unclear if EHR prompts alone can reduce utilization.

Dr. Biddick is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine Harvard Medical School.

Background: Prior studies have shown multifaceted interventions that include EHR prompts can reduce the utilization of telemetry monitoring, but it is unclear if EHR prompts alone can reduce utilization.

Dr. Biddick is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine Harvard Medical School.