MDedge ObGyn

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVD by ascertaining LDL-C

• The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL),estimation of LDL-C is invalid.
• The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC–HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴
• National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵
• Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

• Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴
• Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Continue to: Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk...

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

• Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

• Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention: Stratification by age

• 40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

• 20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴
• > 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy...

• Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

• Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴
• PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23
• Inclisiran, an injectable small-interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴
• Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28
• Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-intolerant patients, bempedoicacid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰
• Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL)and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32
• Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; HDL-C< 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴ ●

CORRESPONDENCE

Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVD by ascertaining LDL-C

• The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL),estimation of LDL-C is invalid.
• The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC–HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴
• National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵
• Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

• Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴
• Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Continue to: Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk...

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

• Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

• Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention: Stratification by age

• 40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

• 20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴
• > 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy...

• Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

• Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴
• PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23
• Inclisiran, an injectable small-interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴
• Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28
• Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-intolerant patients, bempedoicacid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰
• Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL)and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32
• Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; HDL-C< 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴ ●

CORRESPONDENCE

Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

An elevated serum level of cholesterol has been recognized as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) since the publication of the Framingham Study in 1961.¹ Although clinical outcomes related to ASCVD have improved in recent decades, ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and remains, in the United States, the leading cause of death among most racial and ethnic groups. Much of this persistent disease burden can be attributed to inadequate control of ASCVD risk factors and suboptimal implementation of prevention strategies in the general population.²

The most recent (2019) iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease emphasizes a comprehensive, patient-centered, team-based approach to the management of ASCVD risk factors.² In this article, I review how, first, medication to reduce ASCVD risk should be considered only when a patient’s risk is sufficiently high and, second, shared decision-making and social determinants of health should, in all cases, guide and inform optimal implementation of treatment.²

Estimating risk for ASCVD by ascertaining LDL-C

• The Friedewald equation. Traditionally, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is estimated using the Friedewald equation^a applied to a fasting lipid profile. In patients who have a low level of LDL-C (< 70 mg/dL), however, the Friedewald equation becomes less accurate; in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG ≥ 400 mg/dL),estimation of LDL-C is invalid.
• The Martin–Hopkins equation offers a validated estimation of LDL-C when the LDL-C value is < 70 mg/dL.³ This equation—in which the fixed factor of 5 used in the Friedewald equation to estimate very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is replaced by an adjustable factor that is based on the patient’s non-HDL-C (ie, TC–HDL-C) and TG values—is preferred by the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines in this clinical circumstance.⁴
• National Institutes of Health equation. This newer equation provides an accurate estimate of the LDL-C level in patients whose TG value is ≤ 800 mg/dL. The equation has not been fully validated for clinical use, however.⁵
• Direct measurement obviates the need for an equation to estimate LDL-C, but the test is not available in all health care settings.

For adults ≥ 20 years of age who are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy, a nonfasting lipid profile can be used to estimate ASCVD risk and document the baseline LDL-C level. If the TG level is ≥ 400 mg/dL, the test should be administered in the fasting state.⁴

• Apolipoprotein B. Alternatively, apolipoprotein B (apoB) can be measured. Because each LDL-C particle contains 1 apoB molecule, the apoB level describes the LDL-C level more accurately than a calculation of LDL-C. Many patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome have a relatively low calculated LDL-C (thereby falsely reassuring the testing clinician) but have an elevated apoB level. An apoB level ≥ 130 mg/dL corresponds to an LDL-C level >160 mg/dL.⁴
• Calculation of non-HDL-C. Because the nonfasting state does not have a significant impact on a patient’s TC and HDL-C levels, the non-HDL-C level also can be calculated from the results of a nonfasting lipid profile.

Non-HDL-C and apoB are equivalent predictors of ASCVD risk. These 2 assessments might offer better risk estimation than other available tools in patients who have type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.⁶

Continue to: Applying the estimate of 10-year ASCVD risk...

Your recommendation for preventive intervention, such as lipid-lowering therapy, should be based on the estimated 10-year risk for ASCVD. Although multiple validated risk assessment tools are available, ACC/AHA recommends the pooled cohort risk equations (PCE), introduced in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines. The Framingham Heart Study now recommends the ACC/AHA PCE for risk assessment as well.⁷

The PCE, developed from 5 large cohorts, is based on hard atherosclerotic events: nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary artery disease, and stroke. The ACC/AHA PCE is the only risk assessment tool developed using a significant percentage of patients who self-identify as Black.⁸ Alternatives to the ACC/AHA PCE include:

• Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) 10-year ASCVD risk calculator, which incorporates the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score.
• Reynolds Risk Score, which incorporates high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement and a family history of premature ASCVD.⁹

How much does lifestyle modification actually matter?

The absolute impact of diet and exercise on lipid parameters is relatively modest. No studies have demonstrated a reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes with specific interventions regarding diet or activity.

• Diet. Nevertheless, ACC/AHA recommends that at-risk patients follow a dietary pattern that (1) emphasizes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and (2) limits sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meat.

Saturated fat should constitute no more than 5% or 6% of total calories. In controlled-feeding trials,¹⁰ for every 1% of calories from saturated fat that are replaced with carbohydrate or monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, the LDL-C level was found to decline by as much as 1.8 mg/dL. Evidence is insufficient to assert that lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C.¹¹

• Activity. Trials of aerobic physical activity, compared with a more sedentary activity pattern, have demonstrated a reduction in the LDL-C level of as much as 6 mg/dL. All adult patients should be counseled to engage in aerobic physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity—averaging ≥ 40 minutes per session, 3 or 4 sessions per week.¹¹

Primary prevention: Stratification by age

• 40 to 75 years. ACC/AHA recommends that you routinely assess traditional cardiovascular risk factors for these patients and calculate their 10-year risk for ASCVD using the PCE. Statin therapy as primary prevention is indicated for 3 major groups (TABLE 1).⁴ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 10%, in conjunction with 1 or more additional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking), as the threshold for initiating low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy in this age group.¹²

In adults at borderline risk (5% to < 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk) or intermediate risk (≥ 7.5% to < 20% 10-year ASCVD risk), consider risk-enhancing factors to better inform your recommendation for preventive interventions. In these 2 groups, the presence of risk-enhancing factors might justify moderate-intensity statin therapy (TABLE 2⁴).

If your decision regarding preventive intervention remains uncertain, measuring CAC might further guide your discussion with the patient.⁴ When the CAC score is:

• 0 Agatston units and higher-risk conditions (eg, diabetes, family history of premature coronary artery disease, smoking) are absent, statin therapy can be withheld; reassess ASCVD risk in 5 to 10 years.
• 1-99 Agatston units, statin therapy can be started, especially for patients ≥ 55 years of age.
• ≥ 100 Agatston units or ≥ 75th percentile, statin therapy is indicated for all patients, regardless of additional risk factors.⁴

Because statins promote progression from unstable, inflammatory atherosclerotic plaque to more stable, calcified plaque, CAC scoring is not valid in patients already on statin therapy.¹³

In primary prevention, patients who have been classified as having low or intermediate risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have an annual all-cause mortality < 1%, regardless of age and gender. Patients classified as being at high risk, based on ASCVD risk scoring, with a CAC score of 0 Agatston units, have a significantly lower annual mortality than low- or intermediate-risk patients with a CAC score > 0 Agatston units.¹⁴

• 20 to 39 years. Focus on evaluation of lifetime ASCVD risk, rather than short-term (10-year) risk. Lifestyle modification is the primary intervention for younger patients; for those with moderate hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, 160-189 mg/dL) and a family history of premature ASCVD, however, consider statin therapy. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, lifetime ASCVD risk is markedly increased, and high-intensity statin therapy is recommended, regardless of age. In this group, reassess ASCVD risk factors every 4 to 6 years.⁴
• > 75 years, without ASCVD. In this group, the benefit of statin therapy is less clear and might be lessened by an increased potential for adverse effects. A meta-analysis of 28 trials demonstrated that people ages > 75 years had a 24% relative reduction in major coronary events for every 38.7mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, which is comparable to the risk reduction seen in people ages 40 to 75 years.¹⁵

With increasing age, however, the relative reduction in major coronary events with statin therapy decreased,¹⁵ although other trials have not demonstrated age heterogeneity.¹⁶ Because people > 75 years of age have a significantly higher ASCVD event rate, a comparable relative rate reduction with statin therapy results in a larger absolute rate reduction (ARR) and, therefore, a smaller number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent an event, compared to the NNT in younger people.

Secondary prevention

ACC/AHA guidelines define clinical ASCVD as a history of:

• acute coronary syndrome
• myocardial infarction
• coronary or other arterial revascularization
• cerebrovascular event
• symptomatic peripheral artery disease, including aortic aneurysm.

High-intensity statin therapy is indicated for all patients ≤ 75 years who have clinical ASCVD. In patients > 75 years, consider a taper to moderate-intensity statin therapy. An upper age limit for seeing benefit from statin therapy in secondary prevention has not been identified.⁴

In high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, ezetimibe (discussed in the next section) can be added. In very-high-risk patients, if LDL-C remains ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin therapy plus ezetimibe, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (also discussed next) can be added. Always precede initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor with a discussion of the net benefit, safety, and cost with the patient.⁴

Continue to: Options for lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy...

• Statins (formally, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) offer the most predictable reduction in ASCVD risk of any lipid-lowering therapy. The evidence report that accompanied the 2016 USPSTF guidelines on statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) stated that low- or moderate-dosage statin therapy is associated with approximately a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD events and CVD deaths and a 10% to 15% RRR in all-cause mortality.¹⁷

High-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by ≥ 50%. Moderate-intensity statin therapy reduces LDL-C by 30% to 49% (TABLE 3).⁴

Statins are not without risk: A 2016 report¹⁸ estimated that treating 10,000 patients with a statin for 5 years would cause 1 case of rhabdomyolysis, 5 cases of myopathy, 75 new cases of diabetes, and 7 cases of hemorrhagic stroke. The same treatment would, however, avert approximately 1000 CVD events among patients with preexisting disease and approximately 500 CVD events among patients at elevated risk but without preexisting disease.¹⁸

• Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, lowers LDL-C by 13% to 20% and typically is well tolerated. The use of ezetimibe in ASCVD risk reduction is supported by a single randomized controlled trial of more than 18,000 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events over a median follow-up of 6 years (NNT = 50), compared to simvastatin alone.¹⁹ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with clinical ASCVD who do not reach their goal LDL reduction with a statin alone. Ezetimibe also can be considered a statin alternative in patients who are statin intolerant.⁴
• PCSK9 inhibitors. When added to statin therapy, evolocumab and alirocumab—monoclonal antibodies that inhibit PCSK9—offer an incremental decrease in LDL-C of approximately 60%.^20-22 In a meta-analysis of 35 trials evaluating the incremental benefit of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (ARR = 1.3%; NNT = 77), stroke (ARR = 0.4%; NNT = 250), and coronary revascularization (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63) was reported. No significant difference was observed in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.^21,23
• Inclisiran, an injectable small-interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, provides an incremental decrease in LDL-C of > 50% in patients already receiving statin therapy. Meta-analysis of 3 small cardiovascular outcomes trials revealed no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality with inclisiran compared to placebo. Larger outcomes trials are underway and might offer additional insight into this agent’s role in ASCVD risk management.²⁴
• Omega-3 fatty acids. Multiple trials have demonstrated that adding omega-3 fatty acids to usual lipid-lowering therapy does not offer a consistent reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes, despite providing a significant reduction in TG levels. In a high-risk population with persistently elevated TG despite statin therapy, icosapent ethyl, a purified eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 25% over a median 4.9 years (ARR = 4.8%; NNT = 21), and cardiovascular death by 20% (ARR = 0.9%; NNT = 111), compared with a mineral oil placebo.²⁵ Subsequent trials, using a corn oil placebo, failed to duplicate these data²⁶—raising concern that the mineral oil comparator might have altered results of the eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester study.^27,28
• Bempedoic acid is a small-molecule inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase that increases LDL uptake by the liver. Pooled data from studies of bempedoic acid show, on average, a 15% reduction in TC, a 23% reduction in LDL-C, and a 6% increase in HDL-C, without a significant change in TG.²⁹ In statin-intolerant patients, bempedoicacid reduced major ASCVD outcomes by 13% over a median 40 months (ARR = 1.6%; NNT = 63), with no significant reduction in cardiovascular death.³⁰
• Niacin. Two large trials failed to demonstrate improvement in major cardiovascular events or other clinical benefit when niacin is added to moderate-intensity statin therapy, despite a significant increase in the HDL-C level (on average, 6 mg/dL) and a decrease in the LDL-C level (10-12 mg/dL)and TG (42 mg/dL).^31,32
• Fenofibrate lowers TG and increases HDL-C but does not consistently improve cardiovascular outcomes.³³ In a trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent dyslipidemia (serum TG > 204 mg/dL; HDL-C< 34 mg/dL) despite statin therapy, adding fenofibrate reduced CVD outcomes by 4.9%—although this absolute difference did not reach statistical significance.³⁴

Neither niacin nor fenofibrate is considered useful for reducing ASCVD risk across broad populations.⁴

Follow-up to assess progress toward goals

Recheck the lipid profile 4 to 12 weeks after starting lipid-lowering therapy to verify adherence to medication and assess response. The primary goal is the percentage reduction in LDL-C based on ASCVD risk. An additional goal for very-high-risk patients is an LDL-C value ≤ 70 mg/dL. If the reduction in LDL-C is less than desired and adherence is assured, consider titrating the statin dosage or augmenting statin therapy with a nonstatin drug (eg, ezetimibe), or both.⁴ ●

CORRESPONDENCE

Jonathon M. Firnhaber, MD, MAEd, MBA, East Carolina University, Family Medicine Center, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Whole exome sequencing’s role in diagnosing genetic causes of FGR with and without associated anomalies

Mone F, Mellis R, Gabriel H, et al. Should we offer prenatal exome sequencing for intrauterine growth restriction or short long bones? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online October 7, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.09.045

Multiple factors can play a role in FGR, including inherent maternal, placental, or fetal factors; the environment; and/or nutrition. However, prenatal diagnosis is an important consideration when exploring the underlying etiology for a growth-restricted fetus, especially in severe or early-onset cases. Many genetic conditions do not result in structural anomalies but can disrupt overall growth. Additionally, phenotyping in the prenatal period is limited and can miss more subtle physical differences that could point to a genetic cause. 

When compared with karyotype, chromosomal microarray (CMA) has been shown to increase the diagnostic yield in cases of isolated early FGR by 5%,^1,2 and the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to be as high as 19% in this population. Let’s explore the data on exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated FGR. 

Meta-analysis details

In this meta-analysis, the authors reviewed 19 cohort studies or case series that investigated the yield of prenatal sequencing in fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or short long bones, both in association with and without additional anomalies. All cases had nondiagnostic cytogenetic results. Fetal DNA in most cases was obtained through amniocentesis. Variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were considered diagnostic. The authors then calculated the incremental yield of prenatal sequencing over cytogenetic studies as a pooled value, comparing the following groups:

• isolated FGR
• growth restriction with associated anomalies
• isolated short long bones
• short long bones with additional skeletal features.  

Study outcomes 

The total number of cases were as follows: isolated IUGR (n = 71), IUGR associated with additional anomalies (n = 45), isolated short long bones (n = 84), and short long bones associated with additional skeletal findings (n = 252). Causative pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 224 (50%) cases. Apparent incremental yields with prenatal sequencing were as follows for the 4 groups (as illustrated in the FIGURE):

• 4% in isolated IUGR (95% confidence interval [CI], -5%–12%)
• 30% in IUGR with additional anomalies (95% CI, 13%–47%)
• 48% in isolated short long bones (95% CI, 26%–70%)
• 68% in short long bones with additional skeletal changes (95% CI, 58%–77%).

Overall, the authors concluded that prenatal sequencing does not improve prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated IUGR. The majority of these cases were thought to be related to placental insufficiency.

Strengths and limitations 

The main limitation of this study with regard to our discussion is the small study populationof isolated growth restriction. The authors indicate that the number of cases of isolated IUGR were too small to draw firm conclusions. Another limitation was the heterogeneity of the isolated FGR population, which was not limited to severe or early-onset cases. However, the authors did demonstrate that growth restriction in association with fetal anomalies has very high genetic yield rates with prenatal sequencing. 

Continue to: Can whole exome sequencing diagnose genetic causes in cases of severe isolated FGR?...

Zhou H, Fu F, Wang Y, et al. Genetic causes of isolated and severe fetal growth restriction in normal chromosomal microarray analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Published online December 10, 2022. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14620

Severe FGR is diagnosed based on an estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) below the third percentile. As we discussed in the above study by Mone and colleagues, it does not appear that prenatal sequencing significantly improves the diagnostic yield in all isolated FGR cases. However, this has not been previously explored in isolated severe FGR or cases of early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). We know that several monogenic conditions are associated with severe and early-onset isolated fetal growth impairment, including but not limited to Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, and Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Often, these syndromes can present in the prenatal period without other phenotypic findings. Therefore, this study explored the possibility that prenatal sequencing plays an important role for severe cases of FGR with nondiagnostic CMA and/or karyotype. 

Retrospective study details 

Zhou and colleagues retrospectively analyzed 51 cases of severe (EFW or AC below the third percentile) isolated FGR with negative CMA who underwent trio whole exome sequencing, which includes submitting fetal cells as well as both parental samples for testing. Patients with abnormal toxoplasmosis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus (TORCH) tests; structural anomalies; and multiple gestation were excluded from the analysis. As in the study by Mone et al, variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were categorized as diagnostic. 

Results

Eight of 51 cases (15.7%) with severe isolated FGR had diagnostic findings on trio whole exome sequencing as shown in the TABLE. Another 8 cases (15.7%) were found to have variants of unknown significance, of which 2 were later determined to be novel pathogenic variants. Genetic conditions uncovered in this cohort include Cornelia de Lange syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency, Dent disease, trichohepaticenteric syndrome, achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfecta, Pendred syndrome, and both autosomal dominant type 3A and autosomal recessive type 1A deafness. All 10 cases with diagnostic whole exome sequencing or identified novel pathogenic variants were affected by early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). Of these 10 cases, 7 patients underwent pregnancy termination.

To summarize, a total of 10 cases (19.6%) of severe isolated early-onset FGR with negative cytogenetic studies were subsequently diagnosed with an underlying genetic condition using prenatal trio whole exome sequencing. 

Strengths and limitations 

This study is retrospective and has a small sample size (n = 51) that was mostly limited to early-onset isolated severe FGR. However, the diagnostic yield (19.6%) of whole exome sequencing after negative CMA testing was noteworthy and shows that monogenic conditions are an important consideration in the evaluation of severe early-onset FGR, even in the absence of structural abnormalities. 

Could epigenetic mechanisms of placental dysregulation explain low birthweight and future cardiometabolic disease?  

Tekola-Ayele F, Zeng X, Chatterjee S, et al. Placental multi-omics integration identifies candidate functional genes for birthweight. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2384.

FGR has been linked to greater mortality in childhood and increased risk for cardiometabolic disease in adulthood. While genomewide associations studies (GWAS) have defined areas of interest linking genetic variants to low birthweight, their relationship to epigenetic changes in the placenta as well as biologic and functional mechanisms are not yet well understood.  

Multiomics used to identify candidate functional genes for birthweight 

This study analyzed the methylation and gene expression patterns of 291 placental samples, integrating findings into pathways of previously defined GWAS variants. Patient samples were obtained from participants in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies–Singleton cohort. The cohort is ethnically diverse, with 97 Hispanic, 74 White, 71 Black, and 49 Asian participants. Of 286 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found to be associated with birthweight, 273 were analyzed as part of the authors’ data set. These were found to have 7,901 unique protein-coding mRNAs (expression quantitative trait loci [eQTL]) and more than 100,000 nearby (within 1 Mb) CpG islands thought to be involved in changes in DNA methylation (methylation quantitative trait loci [mQTL]). Each functionally connected GWAS-eQTL-mQTL association is referred to as a triplet.

The next arm of the study investigatedthe connections and pathways within each triplet. Three possible scenarios were explored for birthweight GWAS SNPs using a causal interference test (CIT):

1. the SNP alters placental DNA methylation, which then influences gene expression
2. the SNP first alters placental DNA expression, which then influences methylation
3. the SNP influences placental DNA expression and methylation independently, with no notable crossover between their pathways.

Triplets were investigated using the Mendelian randomization (MR) Steiger directionality test to validate the directionality of the pathways found by CIT. Lastly, the possibility of linkage disequilibrium was also studied using the moloc test. 

Results

Using CIT, a causal relationship was predicted in 88 of 197 triplets, in which 84 (95.5%) indicated DNA methylation influences gene expression, and 4 (4.5%) indicated gene expression influences DNA methylation. The authors also used the MR Steiger test to investigate triplets to identify possible causal pathways. Using the MR Steiger test, only 3 of 45 (7%) triplets were found to have independent gene expression and methylation pathways. Thirty-eight of 45 (84%) triplets indicated that gene expression influences DNA methylation, and 7 (15%)triplets demonstrated that DNA methylation influences gene expression. Consistent predictions between CIT and the MR Steiger test revealed 3 triplets in which DNA methylation influences gene expression for the following genes: WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2. Additionally, a strong colocalization signal was found among birthweight, DNA methylation, and gene expression for the following genes: PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1. Gene set enrichment analysis was performed as well and found that low birthweight is associated in substantial upregulation of genes associated with oxidative stress, immune response, adipogenesis, myogenesis, and the production of pancreatic ß cells.  

Study strengths and limitations

The study is one of the first to identify regulatory targets for placental DNA methylation and gene expression in previously identified GWAS loci associated with low birthweight. For example, DNA methylation was found to influence gene expression of WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2, which have previously been shown in animal studies to impact the vascularization and development of the placenta, embryogenesis, and fetal growth. The study also identified 4 genes (PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1) thought to have direct regulatory influence on placental DNA methylation and gene expression.

A limitation of the study is that it could not distinguish between whether the epigenetic changes we outlined have a maternal or fetal origin. Another limitation is that tissue used by the authors for analysis was a small placental biopsy, which does not accurately reflect the genetic heterogeneity of the placenta. Finally, this study does not establish causality between the identified epigenetic pathways and low birthweight. ●

Whole exome sequencing’s role in diagnosing genetic causes of FGR with and without associated anomalies

Mone F, Mellis R, Gabriel H, et al. Should we offer prenatal exome sequencing for intrauterine growth restriction or short long bones? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online October 7, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.09.045

Multiple factors can play a role in FGR, including inherent maternal, placental, or fetal factors; the environment; and/or nutrition. However, prenatal diagnosis is an important consideration when exploring the underlying etiology for a growth-restricted fetus, especially in severe or early-onset cases. Many genetic conditions do not result in structural anomalies but can disrupt overall growth. Additionally, phenotyping in the prenatal period is limited and can miss more subtle physical differences that could point to a genetic cause. 

When compared with karyotype, chromosomal microarray (CMA) has been shown to increase the diagnostic yield in cases of isolated early FGR by 5%,^1,2 and the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to be as high as 19% in this population. Let’s explore the data on exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated FGR. 

Meta-analysis details

In this meta-analysis, the authors reviewed 19 cohort studies or case series that investigated the yield of prenatal sequencing in fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or short long bones, both in association with and without additional anomalies. All cases had nondiagnostic cytogenetic results. Fetal DNA in most cases was obtained through amniocentesis. Variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were considered diagnostic. The authors then calculated the incremental yield of prenatal sequencing over cytogenetic studies as a pooled value, comparing the following groups:

• isolated FGR
• growth restriction with associated anomalies
• isolated short long bones
• short long bones with additional skeletal features.  

Study outcomes 

The total number of cases were as follows: isolated IUGR (n = 71), IUGR associated with additional anomalies (n = 45), isolated short long bones (n = 84), and short long bones associated with additional skeletal findings (n = 252). Causative pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 224 (50%) cases. Apparent incremental yields with prenatal sequencing were as follows for the 4 groups (as illustrated in the FIGURE):

• 4% in isolated IUGR (95% confidence interval [CI], -5%–12%)
• 30% in IUGR with additional anomalies (95% CI, 13%–47%)
• 48% in isolated short long bones (95% CI, 26%–70%)
• 68% in short long bones with additional skeletal changes (95% CI, 58%–77%).

Overall, the authors concluded that prenatal sequencing does not improve prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated IUGR. The majority of these cases were thought to be related to placental insufficiency.

Strengths and limitations 

The main limitation of this study with regard to our discussion is the small study populationof isolated growth restriction. The authors indicate that the number of cases of isolated IUGR were too small to draw firm conclusions. Another limitation was the heterogeneity of the isolated FGR population, which was not limited to severe or early-onset cases. However, the authors did demonstrate that growth restriction in association with fetal anomalies has very high genetic yield rates with prenatal sequencing. 

Continue to: Can whole exome sequencing diagnose genetic causes in cases of severe isolated FGR?...

Zhou H, Fu F, Wang Y, et al. Genetic causes of isolated and severe fetal growth restriction in normal chromosomal microarray analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Published online December 10, 2022. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14620

Severe FGR is diagnosed based on an estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) below the third percentile. As we discussed in the above study by Mone and colleagues, it does not appear that prenatal sequencing significantly improves the diagnostic yield in all isolated FGR cases. However, this has not been previously explored in isolated severe FGR or cases of early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). We know that several monogenic conditions are associated with severe and early-onset isolated fetal growth impairment, including but not limited to Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, and Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Often, these syndromes can present in the prenatal period without other phenotypic findings. Therefore, this study explored the possibility that prenatal sequencing plays an important role for severe cases of FGR with nondiagnostic CMA and/or karyotype. 

Retrospective study details 

Zhou and colleagues retrospectively analyzed 51 cases of severe (EFW or AC below the third percentile) isolated FGR with negative CMA who underwent trio whole exome sequencing, which includes submitting fetal cells as well as both parental samples for testing. Patients with abnormal toxoplasmosis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus (TORCH) tests; structural anomalies; and multiple gestation were excluded from the analysis. As in the study by Mone et al, variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were categorized as diagnostic. 

Results

Eight of 51 cases (15.7%) with severe isolated FGR had diagnostic findings on trio whole exome sequencing as shown in the TABLE. Another 8 cases (15.7%) were found to have variants of unknown significance, of which 2 were later determined to be novel pathogenic variants. Genetic conditions uncovered in this cohort include Cornelia de Lange syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency, Dent disease, trichohepaticenteric syndrome, achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfecta, Pendred syndrome, and both autosomal dominant type 3A and autosomal recessive type 1A deafness. All 10 cases with diagnostic whole exome sequencing or identified novel pathogenic variants were affected by early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). Of these 10 cases, 7 patients underwent pregnancy termination.

To summarize, a total of 10 cases (19.6%) of severe isolated early-onset FGR with negative cytogenetic studies were subsequently diagnosed with an underlying genetic condition using prenatal trio whole exome sequencing. 

Strengths and limitations 

This study is retrospective and has a small sample size (n = 51) that was mostly limited to early-onset isolated severe FGR. However, the diagnostic yield (19.6%) of whole exome sequencing after negative CMA testing was noteworthy and shows that monogenic conditions are an important consideration in the evaluation of severe early-onset FGR, even in the absence of structural abnormalities. 

Could epigenetic mechanisms of placental dysregulation explain low birthweight and future cardiometabolic disease?  

Tekola-Ayele F, Zeng X, Chatterjee S, et al. Placental multi-omics integration identifies candidate functional genes for birthweight. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2384.

FGR has been linked to greater mortality in childhood and increased risk for cardiometabolic disease in adulthood. While genomewide associations studies (GWAS) have defined areas of interest linking genetic variants to low birthweight, their relationship to epigenetic changes in the placenta as well as biologic and functional mechanisms are not yet well understood.  

Multiomics used to identify candidate functional genes for birthweight 

This study analyzed the methylation and gene expression patterns of 291 placental samples, integrating findings into pathways of previously defined GWAS variants. Patient samples were obtained from participants in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies–Singleton cohort. The cohort is ethnically diverse, with 97 Hispanic, 74 White, 71 Black, and 49 Asian participants. Of 286 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found to be associated with birthweight, 273 were analyzed as part of the authors’ data set. These were found to have 7,901 unique protein-coding mRNAs (expression quantitative trait loci [eQTL]) and more than 100,000 nearby (within 1 Mb) CpG islands thought to be involved in changes in DNA methylation (methylation quantitative trait loci [mQTL]). Each functionally connected GWAS-eQTL-mQTL association is referred to as a triplet.

The next arm of the study investigatedthe connections and pathways within each triplet. Three possible scenarios were explored for birthweight GWAS SNPs using a causal interference test (CIT):

1. the SNP alters placental DNA methylation, which then influences gene expression
2. the SNP first alters placental DNA expression, which then influences methylation
3. the SNP influences placental DNA expression and methylation independently, with no notable crossover between their pathways.

Triplets were investigated using the Mendelian randomization (MR) Steiger directionality test to validate the directionality of the pathways found by CIT. Lastly, the possibility of linkage disequilibrium was also studied using the moloc test. 

Results

Using CIT, a causal relationship was predicted in 88 of 197 triplets, in which 84 (95.5%) indicated DNA methylation influences gene expression, and 4 (4.5%) indicated gene expression influences DNA methylation. The authors also used the MR Steiger test to investigate triplets to identify possible causal pathways. Using the MR Steiger test, only 3 of 45 (7%) triplets were found to have independent gene expression and methylation pathways. Thirty-eight of 45 (84%) triplets indicated that gene expression influences DNA methylation, and 7 (15%)triplets demonstrated that DNA methylation influences gene expression. Consistent predictions between CIT and the MR Steiger test revealed 3 triplets in which DNA methylation influences gene expression for the following genes: WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2. Additionally, a strong colocalization signal was found among birthweight, DNA methylation, and gene expression for the following genes: PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1. Gene set enrichment analysis was performed as well and found that low birthweight is associated in substantial upregulation of genes associated with oxidative stress, immune response, adipogenesis, myogenesis, and the production of pancreatic ß cells.  

Study strengths and limitations

The study is one of the first to identify regulatory targets for placental DNA methylation and gene expression in previously identified GWAS loci associated with low birthweight. For example, DNA methylation was found to influence gene expression of WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2, which have previously been shown in animal studies to impact the vascularization and development of the placenta, embryogenesis, and fetal growth. The study also identified 4 genes (PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1) thought to have direct regulatory influence on placental DNA methylation and gene expression.

A limitation of the study is that it could not distinguish between whether the epigenetic changes we outlined have a maternal or fetal origin. Another limitation is that tissue used by the authors for analysis was a small placental biopsy, which does not accurately reflect the genetic heterogeneity of the placenta. Finally, this study does not establish causality between the identified epigenetic pathways and low birthweight. ●

Whole exome sequencing’s role in diagnosing genetic causes of FGR with and without associated anomalies

Mone F, Mellis R, Gabriel H, et al. Should we offer prenatal exome sequencing for intrauterine growth restriction or short long bones? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Published online October 7, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.09.045

Multiple factors can play a role in FGR, including inherent maternal, placental, or fetal factors; the environment; and/or nutrition. However, prenatal diagnosis is an important consideration when exploring the underlying etiology for a growth-restricted fetus, especially in severe or early-onset cases. Many genetic conditions do not result in structural anomalies but can disrupt overall growth. Additionally, phenotyping in the prenatal period is limited and can miss more subtle physical differences that could point to a genetic cause. 

When compared with karyotype, chromosomal microarray (CMA) has been shown to increase the diagnostic yield in cases of isolated early FGR by 5%,^1,2 and the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities has been reported to be as high as 19% in this population. Let’s explore the data on exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated FGR. 

Meta-analysis details

In this meta-analysis, the authors reviewed 19 cohort studies or case series that investigated the yield of prenatal sequencing in fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or short long bones, both in association with and without additional anomalies. All cases had nondiagnostic cytogenetic results. Fetal DNA in most cases was obtained through amniocentesis. Variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were considered diagnostic. The authors then calculated the incremental yield of prenatal sequencing over cytogenetic studies as a pooled value, comparing the following groups:

• isolated FGR
• growth restriction with associated anomalies
• isolated short long bones
• short long bones with additional skeletal features.  

Study outcomes 

The total number of cases were as follows: isolated IUGR (n = 71), IUGR associated with additional anomalies (n = 45), isolated short long bones (n = 84), and short long bones associated with additional skeletal findings (n = 252). Causative pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 224 (50%) cases. Apparent incremental yields with prenatal sequencing were as follows for the 4 groups (as illustrated in the FIGURE):

• 4% in isolated IUGR (95% confidence interval [CI], -5%–12%)
• 30% in IUGR with additional anomalies (95% CI, 13%–47%)
• 48% in isolated short long bones (95% CI, 26%–70%)
• 68% in short long bones with additional skeletal changes (95% CI, 58%–77%).

Overall, the authors concluded that prenatal sequencing does not improve prenatal diagnosis in cases of isolated IUGR. The majority of these cases were thought to be related to placental insufficiency.

Strengths and limitations 

The main limitation of this study with regard to our discussion is the small study populationof isolated growth restriction. The authors indicate that the number of cases of isolated IUGR were too small to draw firm conclusions. Another limitation was the heterogeneity of the isolated FGR population, which was not limited to severe or early-onset cases. However, the authors did demonstrate that growth restriction in association with fetal anomalies has very high genetic yield rates with prenatal sequencing. 

Continue to: Can whole exome sequencing diagnose genetic causes in cases of severe isolated FGR?...

Zhou H, Fu F, Wang Y, et al. Genetic causes of isolated and severe fetal growth restriction in normal chromosomal microarray analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Published online December 10, 2022. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14620

Severe FGR is diagnosed based on an estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) below the third percentile. As we discussed in the above study by Mone and colleagues, it does not appear that prenatal sequencing significantly improves the diagnostic yield in all isolated FGR cases. However, this has not been previously explored in isolated severe FGR or cases of early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). We know that several monogenic conditions are associated with severe and early-onset isolated fetal growth impairment, including but not limited to Cornelia de Lange syndrome, Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, and Meier-Gorlin syndrome. Often, these syndromes can present in the prenatal period without other phenotypic findings. Therefore, this study explored the possibility that prenatal sequencing plays an important role for severe cases of FGR with nondiagnostic CMA and/or karyotype. 

Retrospective study details 

Zhou and colleagues retrospectively analyzed 51 cases of severe (EFW or AC below the third percentile) isolated FGR with negative CMA who underwent trio whole exome sequencing, which includes submitting fetal cells as well as both parental samples for testing. Patients with abnormal toxoplasmosis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus (TORCH) tests; structural anomalies; and multiple gestation were excluded from the analysis. As in the study by Mone et al, variants classified as likely pathogenic and pathogenic were categorized as diagnostic. 

Results

Eight of 51 cases (15.7%) with severe isolated FGR had diagnostic findings on trio whole exome sequencing as shown in the TABLE. Another 8 cases (15.7%) were found to have variants of unknown significance, of which 2 were later determined to be novel pathogenic variants. Genetic conditions uncovered in this cohort include Cornelia de Lange syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency, Dent disease, trichohepaticenteric syndrome, achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfecta, Pendred syndrome, and both autosomal dominant type 3A and autosomal recessive type 1A deafness. All 10 cases with diagnostic whole exome sequencing or identified novel pathogenic variants were affected by early-onset FGR (<32 weeks’ gestation). Of these 10 cases, 7 patients underwent pregnancy termination.

To summarize, a total of 10 cases (19.6%) of severe isolated early-onset FGR with negative cytogenetic studies were subsequently diagnosed with an underlying genetic condition using prenatal trio whole exome sequencing. 

Strengths and limitations 

This study is retrospective and has a small sample size (n = 51) that was mostly limited to early-onset isolated severe FGR. However, the diagnostic yield (19.6%) of whole exome sequencing after negative CMA testing was noteworthy and shows that monogenic conditions are an important consideration in the evaluation of severe early-onset FGR, even in the absence of structural abnormalities. 

Could epigenetic mechanisms of placental dysregulation explain low birthweight and future cardiometabolic disease?  

Tekola-Ayele F, Zeng X, Chatterjee S, et al. Placental multi-omics integration identifies candidate functional genes for birthweight. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2384.

FGR has been linked to greater mortality in childhood and increased risk for cardiometabolic disease in adulthood. While genomewide associations studies (GWAS) have defined areas of interest linking genetic variants to low birthweight, their relationship to epigenetic changes in the placenta as well as biologic and functional mechanisms are not yet well understood.  

Multiomics used to identify candidate functional genes for birthweight 

This study analyzed the methylation and gene expression patterns of 291 placental samples, integrating findings into pathways of previously defined GWAS variants. Patient samples were obtained from participants in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies–Singleton cohort. The cohort is ethnically diverse, with 97 Hispanic, 74 White, 71 Black, and 49 Asian participants. Of 286 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found to be associated with birthweight, 273 were analyzed as part of the authors’ data set. These were found to have 7,901 unique protein-coding mRNAs (expression quantitative trait loci [eQTL]) and more than 100,000 nearby (within 1 Mb) CpG islands thought to be involved in changes in DNA methylation (methylation quantitative trait loci [mQTL]). Each functionally connected GWAS-eQTL-mQTL association is referred to as a triplet.

The next arm of the study investigatedthe connections and pathways within each triplet. Three possible scenarios were explored for birthweight GWAS SNPs using a causal interference test (CIT):

1. the SNP alters placental DNA methylation, which then influences gene expression
2. the SNP first alters placental DNA expression, which then influences methylation
3. the SNP influences placental DNA expression and methylation independently, with no notable crossover between their pathways.

Triplets were investigated using the Mendelian randomization (MR) Steiger directionality test to validate the directionality of the pathways found by CIT. Lastly, the possibility of linkage disequilibrium was also studied using the moloc test. 

Results

Using CIT, a causal relationship was predicted in 88 of 197 triplets, in which 84 (95.5%) indicated DNA methylation influences gene expression, and 4 (4.5%) indicated gene expression influences DNA methylation. The authors also used the MR Steiger test to investigate triplets to identify possible causal pathways. Using the MR Steiger test, only 3 of 45 (7%) triplets were found to have independent gene expression and methylation pathways. Thirty-eight of 45 (84%) triplets indicated that gene expression influences DNA methylation, and 7 (15%)triplets demonstrated that DNA methylation influences gene expression. Consistent predictions between CIT and the MR Steiger test revealed 3 triplets in which DNA methylation influences gene expression for the following genes: WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2. Additionally, a strong colocalization signal was found among birthweight, DNA methylation, and gene expression for the following genes: PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1. Gene set enrichment analysis was performed as well and found that low birthweight is associated in substantial upregulation of genes associated with oxidative stress, immune response, adipogenesis, myogenesis, and the production of pancreatic ß cells.  

Study strengths and limitations

The study is one of the first to identify regulatory targets for placental DNA methylation and gene expression in previously identified GWAS loci associated with low birthweight. For example, DNA methylation was found to influence gene expression of WNT3A, CTDNEP1, and RANBP2, which have previously been shown in animal studies to impact the vascularization and development of the placenta, embryogenesis, and fetal growth. The study also identified 4 genes (PLEKHA1, FES, PRMT7, and CTDNEP1) thought to have direct regulatory influence on placental DNA methylation and gene expression.

A limitation of the study is that it could not distinguish between whether the epigenetic changes we outlined have a maternal or fetal origin. Another limitation is that tissue used by the authors for analysis was a small placental biopsy, which does not accurately reflect the genetic heterogeneity of the placenta. Finally, this study does not establish causality between the identified epigenetic pathways and low birthweight. ●

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are now used by more than 15% of US contraceptors. The majority of these IUDs release the progestin levonorgestrel, and with now longer extended use of the IUDs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),^1-3 they become even more attractive for use for contraception,control of menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) during reproductive years and perimenopause, and potentially, although not FDA approved for this purpose, postmenopause for endometrial protection in estrogen users. In this roundtable discussion, we will look at some of the benefits of the IUD for contraception effectiveness and control of bleeding, as well as the potential risks if used for postmenopausal women.

Progestin IUDs and contraception

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP: Dr. Kaunitz, what are the contraceptive benefits of progestin IUDs during perimenopause?
 

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP: We know fertility declines as women approach menopause. However, when pregnancy occurs in older reproductive-age women, the pregnancies are often unintended, as reflected by high rates of induced abortion in this population. In addition, the prevalence of maternal comorbidities (during pregnancy and delivery) is higher in older reproductive-age women, with the maternal mortality rate more than 5 times higher compared with that of younger women.⁴ Two recently published clinical trials assessed the extended use of full-size IUDs containing 52 mg of levonor-gestrel (LNG), with the brand names Mirena and Liletta.^1,2 The data from these trials confirmed that both IUDs remain highly effective for up to 8 years of use, and currently, both devices are approved for up to 8 years of use. One caveat is that, in the unusual occurrence of a pregnancy being diagnosed in a woman using an IUD, we as clinicians, must be alert to the high prevalence of ectopic pregnancies in this setting.

Progestin IUDs and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how well progestin IUDs work for HMB?

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD: Many women who need contraception will use these devices for suppressing HMB, and they can be quite effective, if the diagnosis truly is HMB, at reducing bleeding.⁵ But that efficacy in bleeding reduction may not be quite as long as the efficacy in pregnancy prevention.⁶ In my experience, among women using IUDs specifically for their HMB, good bleeding control may require changing the IUD at 3 to 5 years.

Barbara S. Levy, MD: When inserting a LNG-IUD for menorrhagia in the perimenopausal time frame, sometimes I will do a progestin withdrawal first, which will thin the endometrium and induce withdrawal bleeding because, in my experience, if you place an IUD in someone with perimenopausal bleeding, you may end up with a lot of breakthrough bleeding.

Perimenopause and hot flashes

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, we have learned that hot flashes often occur and become bothersome to women during perimenopause. Many women have IUDs placed during perimenopause for bleeding. Can you comment about IUD use during perimenopause and postmenopause?
 

Dr. Kaunitz: In older reproductive-age women who already have a progestin-releasing IUD placed, as they get closer to menopause when vasomotor symptoms (VMS) might occur, if these symptoms are bothersome, the presence or placement of a progestin-releasing IUD can facilitate treatment of perimenopausal VMS with estrogen therapy.

Progestin IUDs cause profound endometrial suppression, reduce bleeding and often, over time, cause users to become amenorrheic.⁷

The Mirena package insert states, “Amenorrhea develops in about 20% of users by one year.”² By year 3 and continuing through year 8, the prevalence of amenorrhea with the 52-mg LNG-IUD is 35% to 40%.⁸ From a study by Nanette Santoro, MD, and colleagues, we know that, in perimenopausal women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place, who are experiencing bothersome VMS, adding transdermal estrogen is very effective in treating and suppressing those hot flashes. In her small clinical trial, among participants with perimenopausal bothersome VMS with an IUD in place, half were randomized to use of transdermal estradiol and then compared with women who did not get the estradiol patch. There was excellent relief of perimenopausal hot flashes with the combination of the progestin IUD for endometrial suppression and transdermal estrogen to relieve hot flashes.⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: Which women would not be good candidates for the use of this combination?

Dr. Kaunitz: We know that, as women age, the prevalence of conditions that are contraindications to combination contraceptives (estrogen-progestin pills, patches, or rings) starts to increase. Specifically, we see more: hypertension, diabetes, and high body mass index (BMI), or obesity. We also know that migraine headaches in women older than age 35 years is another condition in which ACOG and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would not recommend use of combination contraceptives.^10,11 These older perimenopausal women may be excellent candidates for a progestin-only releasing IUD combined with use of transdermal menopausal doses of estradiol if needed for VMS.

Dr. Goldstein: I do want to add that, in those patients who don’t have these comorbidities, combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives do a very nice job of ovarian suppression and will prevent the erratic production of estradiol, which, in my experience, often results in not only irregular bleeding but also possible exacerbation of perimenopausal mood symptoms.

Dr. Kaunitz: I agree, Steve. The ideal older reproductive-age candidate for combination pills, patch, or ring would be a slender, healthy, nonsmoking woman with normal blood pressure. Such women would be a fairly small subgroup of my practice, but they can safely continue combination contraceptives right through menopause. Consistent with CDC and ACOG guidance, rather than checking gonadotropins to “determine when menopause has occurred,” (which is, in fact, not an evidence-based approach to diagnosing menopause in this setting), such women can continue the combination contraceptive right up until age 55—the likelihood that women are still going to be ovulating or at risk for pregnancy becomes vanishingly small at that age.^11,12 Women in their mid-50s can either seamlessly transition to use of systemic estrogen-progestin menopausal therapy or go off hormones completely.

Continue to: The IUD and HMB...

The IUD and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, there’s been some good literature on the best management options for women with HMB. What is the most current evidence?

Dr. Goldstein: I think that the retiring of the terms menorrhagia and metrorrhagia may have been premature because HMB implies cyclical bleeding, and this population of women with HMB will typically do quite well. Women who have what we used to call metrorrhagia or irregular bleeding, by definition, need endometrial evaluation to be sure they don’t have some sort of organic pathology. It would be a mistake for clinicians to use an LNG-IUD in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) that has not been appropriately evaluated.

If we understand that we are discussing HMB, a Cochrane Review from 2022¹³ suggests that an LNG intrauterine system is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in perimenopausal women with HMB. Antifibrinolytics appeared second best, while long-cycle progestogens came in third place. Evidence on perception of improvement in satisfaction was ranked as low certainty. That same review found that hysterectomy was the best treatment for reducing bleeding, obviously, followed by resectoscopic endometrial ablation or a nonresectoscopic global endometrial ablation.

The evidence rating was low certainty regarding the likelihood that placing an LNG-IUD in women with HMB will result in amenorrhea, and I think that’s a very important point. The expectation of patients should be reduced or a significantly reduced amount of their HMB, not necessarily amenorrhea. Certainly, minimally invasive hysterectomy will result in total amenorrhea and may have a larger increase in satisfaction, but it has its own set of other kinds of possible complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: In an industry-funded, international multicenter trial,¹⁴ women with documented HMB (hemoglobin was eluted from soiled sanitary products), with menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or more per cycle, were randomized to placement of an LNG 52-mg IUD (Mirena) or cyclical medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)—oral progestin use.

Although menstrual blood loss declined in both groups, it declined dramatically more in women with an IUD placed, and specifically with the IUD, menstrual blood loss declined by 129 mL on average, whereas the decline in menstrual blood loss with cyclical MPA was 18 mL. This data, along with earlier European data,¹⁵ which showed similar findings in women with HMB led to the approval of the Mirena progestin IUD for a second indication to treat HMB in 2009.

I also want to point out that, in the May 2023 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Creinin and colleagues published a similar trial in women with HMB showing, once again, that progestin IUDs (52-mg LNG-IUD, Liletta) are extremely effective in reducing HMB.¹⁶ There is crystal clear evidence from randomized trials that both 52-mg LNG-IUDs, Mirena and Liletta, are very effective in reducing HMB and, in fact, are contributing to many women who in the past would have proceeded with surgery, such as ablation or hysterectomy, to control their HMB.

Oral contraception

Dr. Pinkerton: What about using low-dose continuous oral contraceptives noncyclically for women with HMB?

Dr. Goldstein: I do that all the time. It is interesting that Dr. Kaunitz mentions his patient population. It’s why we understand that one size does not fit all. You need to see patients one at a time, and if they are good candidates for a combined estrogen-progestin contraception, whether it’s pills, patches, or rings, giving that continuously does a very nice job in reducing HMB and straightening out some of the other symptoms that these perimenopausal women will have.

IUD risks

Dr. Pinkerton: We all know about use of low-dose oral contraceptives for management of AUB, and we use them, although we worry a little bit about breast cancer risk. Dr. Levy, please comment on the risks with IUDs of expulsions and perforations. What are the downsides of IUDs?

Dr. Levy: Beyond the cost, although it is a minimally invasive procedure, IUD insertion can be an invasive procedure for a patient to undergo; expulsions can occur.¹⁷ We know that a substantial percentage of perimenopausal women will have fibroids. Although many fibroids are not located in the uterine cavity, the expulsion rate with HMB for an LNG-IUD can be higher,^13,16,18,19 perhaps because of local prostaglandin release with an increase in uterine contractility. There is a low incidence of perforations, but they do happen, particularly among women with scars in the uterus or who have a severely anteflexed or retroflexed uterus, and women with cervical stenosis, for example, if they have had a LEEP procedure, etc. Even though progestin IUDs are outstanding tools in our toolbox, they are invasive to some extent, and they do have the possibility of complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: As Dr. Levy points out, although placement of an IUD may be considered an invasive procedure, it is also an office-based procedure, so women can drive home or drive back to work afterwards without the disruption in their life and the potential complications associated with surgery and anesthesia.

Continue to: Concerns with malpositioning...

Dr. Pinkerton: After placement of an IUD, during a follow-up visit, sometimes you can’t visualize the string. The ultrasonography report may reveal, “IUD appears to be in the right place within the endometrium.” Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how we should use ultrasound when we can’t visualize or find the IUD string, or if the patient complains of abdominal pain, lower abdominal discomfort, or irregular bleeding or spotting and we become concerned about IUD malposition?

Dr. Goldstein: Ultrasound is not really required after an uncomplicated placement of an IUD or during routine management of women who have no problems who are using an IUD. In patients who present with pain or some abnormal bleeding, however, sometimes it is the IUD being malpositioned. A very interesting study by the late great Beryl Benacerraf²⁰ showed that there was a statistically significant higher incidence of the IUD being poorly positioned when patients have pain or bleeding (FIGURE 1). It was not always apparent on 2D ultrasonography. Using a standard transvaginal ultrasound of the long access plane, the IUD may appear to be very centrally located. However, if you do a 3D coronal section, not infrequently in these patients with any pain or bleeding, one of the arms has pierced the myometrium (FIGURE 2). This can actually be a source of pain and bleeding.

It’s also very interesting when you talk about perforation. I became aware of a big to-do in the medical/legal world about the possibility of the IUD migrating through the uterine cavity.²¹ This just does not exist, as was already pointed out. If the IUD is really going to go anywhere, if it’s properly placed, it’s going to be expelled through an open cervix. I do believe that, if you have pierced the myometrium through uterine contractility over time, some of these IUDs could work their way through the myometrium and somehow come out of the uterus either totally or partially. I think ultrasound is invaluable in patients with pain and bleeding, but I think you need to have an ultrasound lab capable of doing a 3D coronal section.

Progestin IUDs for HT replacement: Benefits/risks

Dr. Pinkerton: Many clinicians are excited that they can use essentially estrogen alone for women who have a progestin IUD in place. What about the possible off-label use of the progestin IUD to replace oral progestogen for hormone therapy (HT)? Dr. Kaunitz, are there any studies using this for postmenopausal HT (with a reminder that the IUD is not FDA approved for this purpose)?

Dr. Kaunitz: We have data from Europe indicating that, in menopausal women using systemic estrogen, the full-size LNG 52 IUD—Mirena or Liletta—provides excellent endometrial suppression.²² Where we don’t have data is with the smaller IUDs, which would be Kyleena and Skyla, which release smaller amounts of progestin each day into the endometrial cavity.

I have a number of patients, most of them women who started use of a progestin IUD as older reproductive-age women and then started systemic estrogen for treatment of perimenopausal hot flashes and then continued the use of their IUD plus systemic estrogen in treating postmenopausal hot flashes. The IUD is very useful in this setting, but as you pointed out, Dr. Pinkerton, this does represent off-label use.

Dr. Pinkerton: I know this use does not affect plasma lipids or cardiovascular risk markers, although users seem to report that the IUD has improved their quality of life. The question comes up, what are the benefits on cancer risk for using an IUD?

Dr. Levy: It’s such a great question because, as we talk about the balance of risks and benefits for anything that we are offering to our patients, it is really important to focus on some of the benefits. For both the copper and the LNG-IUD, there is a reduction in endometrial cancer,²² as well as pretty good data with the copper IUD about a reduction in cervical cancer.²³ Those data are a little bit less clear for the LNG-IUD.

Interestingly, at least one meta-analysis published in 2020 shows about a 30% reduction in ovarian cancer risk with the LNG-IUD.²⁴ We need to focus our patients on these other benefits. They tend to focus on the risks, and, of course, the media blows up the risks, but the benefits are quite substantial beyond just reducing HMB and providing contraception.

Dr. Pinkerton: As Dr. Kaunitz said, when you use this IUD, with its primarily local uterine progestin effects, it’s more like using estrogen alone without as much systemic progestin. Recently I wrote an editorial on the benefits of estrogen alone on the risk of breast cancer, primarily based on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational long-term 18-year cumulative follow-up. When estrogen alone was prescribed to women after a hysterectomy, estrogen therapy used at menopause did not increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, and was associated with decreased mortality.²⁵ However, the nurse’s health study has suggested that longer-term use may be increased with estrogen alone.²⁶ For women in the WHI with an intact uterus who used estrogen, oral MPA slightly increased the risk for breast cancer, and this elevated risk persisted even after discontinuation. This leads us to the question, what are the risks of breast cancer with progestin IUD use?

I recently reviewed the literature, and the answer is, it’s mixed. The FDA has put language into the package label that acknowledges a potential breast cancer risk for women who use a progestin IUD,²⁷ and that warning states, “Women who currently have or have had breast cancer or suspect breast cancer should not use hormonal contraception because some breast cancers are hormone sensitive.” The label goes on to say, “Observational studies of the risk of breast cancer with the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUS don’t provide conclusive evidence of increased risk.” Thus, there is no conclusive answer as to whether there is a possible link of progestin IUDs to breast cancer.

What I tell my patients is that research is inconclusive. However, it’s unlikely for a 52-mg LNG-IUD to significantly increase a woman’s breast cancer risk, except possibly in those already at high risk from other risk factors. I tell them that breast cancer is listed in the package insert as a potential risk. I could not find any data on whether adding a low-dose estradiol patch would further increase that risk. So I counsel women about potential risk, but tell them that I don’t have any strong evidence of risk.

Continue to: Dr. Goldstein...

Dr. Goldstein: If you look in the package insert for Mirena,² similar to Liletta, certainly the serum levels of LNG are lower than that for combination oral contraceptives. For the IUD progestins, they are not localized only to the uterus, and LNG levels range from about 150 to 200 µg/mL up to 60 months. It’s greater at 12 months, at about 180 µg/mL,at 24 months it was 192 µg/mL, and by 60 months it was 159 µg/mL. It’s important to realize that there is some systemic absorption of progestin with progestin IUDs, and it is not completely a local effect.

JoAnn, you mentioned the WHI data,²⁵ and just to specify, it was not the estrogen-only arm, it was the conjugated equine estrogen-only arm of the WHI. I don’t think that estradiol alone increases breast cancer risk (although there are no good prospective, follow-through, 18-year study data, like the WHI), but I think readers need to understand the difference in the estrogen type.

Endometrial evaluation. My question for the panel is as follows. I agree that the use of the progestin-releasing IUD is very nice for that transition to menopause. I do believe it provides endometrial protection, but we know from other studies that, when we give continuous combined HT, about 21% to 26% of patients will experience some bleeding/staining, responding in the first 4-week cycles, and it can be as high as 9% at 1 year. If I have a patient who bleeds on continuous combined HT, I will evaluate her endometrium, usually just with a simple transvaginal ultrasound. If an IUD is in place, and the patient now begins to have some irregular bleeding, how do you evaluate her with the IUD in place?

Dr. Levy: That is a huge challenge. We know from a recent paper,²⁸ that the endometrial thickness, while an excellent measure for Caucasian and European women, may be a poor marker for endometrial pathology in African-American women. What we thought we knew, which was, if the stripe is 4 mL or less, we can forget about it, I think in our more recent research that is not so true. So you bring up a great point, what do you do? The most reliable evaluation will be with an office hysteroscopy, where you can really look at the entire cavity and for tiny, little polyps and other things. But then we are off label because the use of hysteroscopy with an IUD in place is off label. So we are really in a conundrum.

Dr. Pinkerton: Also, if you do an endometrial biopsy, you might dislodge the IUD. If you think that you are going to take the IUD out, it may not matter if you dislodge it. I will often obtain a transvaginal ultrasound to help me figure out the next step, and maybe look at the dosing of the estrogen and progestin—but you can’t monitor an IUD with blood levels. You are in a vacuum of trying to figure out the best thing to do.

Dr. Kaunitz: One of the hats I wear here in Jacksonville is Director of GYN Ultrasound. I have a fair amount of experience doing endometrial biopsies in women with progestin IUDs in place under abdominal ultrasound guidance and keeping a close eye on the position of the IUD. In the first dozen or so such procedures I did, I was quite concerned about dislodging the IUD. It hasn’t happened yet, and it gives me some reassurance to be able to image the IUD and your endometrial suction curette inside the cavity as you are obtaining endometrial sampling. I have substantial experience now doing that, and so far, no problems. I do counsel all such women in advance that there is some chance I could dislodge their IUD.

Dr. Goldstein: In addition to dislodging the IUD, are you not concerned that, if the pathology is not global, that a blind endometrial sampling may be fraught with some error?

Dr. Kaunitz: The endometrium in women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place tends to be very well suppressed. Although one might occasionally find, for instance, a polyp in that setting, I have not run into, and I don’t expect to encounter going forward, endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in women with current use of a progestin IUD. It’s possible but unlikely.

Dr. Levy: The progestin IUD will counterbalance a type-1 endometrial cancer—an endometrial cancer related to hyperstimulation by estrogen. It will not do anything, to my knowledge, to counterbalance a type 2. I think the art of medicine is, you do the best you can with the first episode of bleeding, and if she persists in her bleeding, we have to persevere and continue to evaluate her.

Dr. Goldstein: I agree 100%.

Dr. Pinkerton: We all agree with you. That’s a really good point.

Continue to: Case examinations...

Case examinations

CASE 1 Woman with intramural fibroids

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, you have a 48-year-old Black woman who has heavy but regular menstrual bleeding with multiple fibroids (the largest is about 4 to 5 cm, they look intramural, with some distortion of the cavity but not a submucous myoma, and the endometrial depth is 9 cm). Would you insert an IUD, and would you recommend an endometrial biopsy first?

Dr. Goldstein: I am not a huge fan of blind endometrial sampling, and I do think that we use the “biopsy” somewhat inappropriately since sampling is not a directed biopsy. This became obvious in the landmark paper by Guido et al in 1995 and was adopted by ACOG only in 2012.²⁹ Cancers that occupy less than 50% of the endometrial surface area are often missed with such blind sampling. Thus I would not perform an endometrial biopsy first, but would rather rely on properly timed and performed transvaginal ultrasound to rule out any concurrent endometrial disease. I think a lot of patients who have HMB, not only because of their fibroids but also often just due to the surface area of their uterine cavity being increased—so essentially there is more blood volume when they bleed. However, you said that in this case the patient has regular menstrual bleeding, so I am assuming that she is still ovulatory. She may have some adenomyosis. She may have a large uterine cavity. I think she is an excellent candidate for an LNG-releasing IUD to reduce menstrual blood flow significantly. It will not necessarily give her amenorrhea, and it may give her some irregular bleeding. Then at some distant point, say in 5 or 6 months if she does have some irregular staining or bleeding, I would feel much better about the fact that nothing has developed as long as I knew that the endometrium was devoid of pathology when I started.

CASE 2 Woman with family history of breast cancer

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy, a 44-year-old woman has a family history of breast cancer in her mother at age 72, but she still needs contraceptionbecause of that unintended pregnancy risk in the 40s, and she wants something that is not going to increase her risk of breast cancer. What would you use, and how would you counsel her if you decided to use a progestin IUD?

Dr. Levy: The data are mixed,^30-33 but whatever the risk, it is miniscule, and I would bring up the CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria.¹¹ For a patient with a family history of breast cancer, for use of the progestin IUD, it is a 1—no contraindications. What I tend to tell my patients is, if you are worried about breast cancer, watch how much alcohol you are drinking and maintain regular exercise. There are so many preventive things that we can do to reduce risk of breast cancer when she needs contraception. If there is any increase in risk, it is so miniscule that I would very strongly recommend a progestin IUD for her.

Dr. Pinkerton: In addition, in recognizing the different densities of breast, dense breast density could lead to supplemental screening, which also could give her some reassurance that we are adequately screening for breast cancer.

CASE 3 Woman with IUD and VMS
 

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, you have a 52-year-old overweight female. She has been using a progestin IUD for 4 years, is amenorrheic, but now she is having moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms despite the IUD in place. You have talked to her about risks and benefits of HT, and she is interested in starting it. I know we talked about the studies, but I want to know what you are going to tell her. How do you counsel her about off-label use?

Dr. Kaunitz: The most important issue related to treating vasomotor symptoms in this patient is the route of systemic estrogen. Understandably, women’s biggest concern regarding the risks of systemic estrogen-progestin therapy is breast cancer. However, statistically, by far the biggest risk associated with oral estrogen-progestogen therapy, is elevated risk of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We have seen this, with a number of studies, and the WHI made it crystal clear with risks of oral conjugated equine estrogen at the dose of 0.625 mg daily. Oral estradiol 1 mg daily is also associated with a similar elevated risk of venous thrombosis. We also know that age and BMI are both independent risk factors for thrombosis. So, for a woman in her 50s who has a BMI > 30 mg/kg², I don’t want to further elevate her risk of thrombosis by giving her oral estrogen, whether it is estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen. This is a patient in whom I would be comfortable using transdermal (patch) estradiol, perhaps starting with a standard dose of 0.05 mg weekly or twice weekly patch, keeping in mind that 0.05 mg in the setting of transdermal estrogen refer to the daily or to the 24-hour release rate. The 1.0 mg of oral estradiol and 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogen refers to the mg quantity of estrogen in each tablet. This is a source of great confusion for clinicians.

If, during follow-up, the 0.05 mg estradiol patch is not sufficient to substantially reduce symptoms, we could go up, for instance, to a 0.075 mg estradiol patch. We know very clearly from a variety of observational studies, including a very large UK study,³⁴ that in contrast with oral estrogen, transdermal estradiol is safer from the perspective of thrombosis.

Insurance coverage for IUDs

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy: Can you discuss IUDs and the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to cover contraceptive services?

Dr. Levy: Unfortunately, we do not know whether this benefit will continue based on a very recent finding from a judge in Texas that ruled the preventive benefits of the ACA were illegal.³⁵ We don’t know what will happen going forward. What I will say is that, unfortunately, many insurance companies have not preserved the meaning of “cover all things,” so what we are finding is that, for example, they only have to cover one type in a class. The FDA defined 18 classes of contraceptives, and a hormonal IUD is one class, so they can decide that they are only going to cover one of the four IUDS. And then women don’t have access to the other three, some of which might be more appropriate for them than another.

The other thing very relevant to this conversation is that, if you use an ICD-10 code for menorrhagia, for HMB, it no longer lives within that ACA preventive care requirement of coverage for contraceptives, and now she is going to owe a big deductible or a copay. If you are practicing in an institution that does not allow the use of IUDs for contraception, like a Catholic institution where I used to practice, you will want to use that ICD-10 code for HMB. But if you want it offered with no out-of-pocket cost for the patient, you need to use the preventive medicine codes and the contraception code. These little nuances for us can make a huge difference for our patients.

Dr. Pinkerton: Thank you for that reminder. I want to thank our panelists, Dr. Levy, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Kaunitz, for providing us with such a great mix of evidence and expert opinion and also giving a benefit of their vast experience as award-winning gynecologists. Hopefully, today you have learned the benefits of the progestin IUD not only for contraception in reproductive years and perimenopause but also for treatment of HMB, and the potential benefit due to the more prolonged effectiveness of the IUDs for endometrial protection in postmenopause. This allows less progestin risk, essentially estrogen alone for postmenopausal HT. Unsolved questions remain about whether there is a risk of breast cancer with their use, but there is a clear benefit of protecting against pregnancy and endometrial cancer. ●

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are now used by more than 15% of US contraceptors. The majority of these IUDs release the progestin levonorgestrel, and with now longer extended use of the IUDs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),^1-3 they become even more attractive for use for contraception,control of menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) during reproductive years and perimenopause, and potentially, although not FDA approved for this purpose, postmenopause for endometrial protection in estrogen users. In this roundtable discussion, we will look at some of the benefits of the IUD for contraception effectiveness and control of bleeding, as well as the potential risks if used for postmenopausal women.

Progestin IUDs and contraception

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP: Dr. Kaunitz, what are the contraceptive benefits of progestin IUDs during perimenopause?
 

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP: We know fertility declines as women approach menopause. However, when pregnancy occurs in older reproductive-age women, the pregnancies are often unintended, as reflected by high rates of induced abortion in this population. In addition, the prevalence of maternal comorbidities (during pregnancy and delivery) is higher in older reproductive-age women, with the maternal mortality rate more than 5 times higher compared with that of younger women.⁴ Two recently published clinical trials assessed the extended use of full-size IUDs containing 52 mg of levonor-gestrel (LNG), with the brand names Mirena and Liletta.^1,2 The data from these trials confirmed that both IUDs remain highly effective for up to 8 years of use, and currently, both devices are approved for up to 8 years of use. One caveat is that, in the unusual occurrence of a pregnancy being diagnosed in a woman using an IUD, we as clinicians, must be alert to the high prevalence of ectopic pregnancies in this setting.

Progestin IUDs and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how well progestin IUDs work for HMB?

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD: Many women who need contraception will use these devices for suppressing HMB, and they can be quite effective, if the diagnosis truly is HMB, at reducing bleeding.⁵ But that efficacy in bleeding reduction may not be quite as long as the efficacy in pregnancy prevention.⁶ In my experience, among women using IUDs specifically for their HMB, good bleeding control may require changing the IUD at 3 to 5 years.

Barbara S. Levy, MD: When inserting a LNG-IUD for menorrhagia in the perimenopausal time frame, sometimes I will do a progestin withdrawal first, which will thin the endometrium and induce withdrawal bleeding because, in my experience, if you place an IUD in someone with perimenopausal bleeding, you may end up with a lot of breakthrough bleeding.

Perimenopause and hot flashes

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, we have learned that hot flashes often occur and become bothersome to women during perimenopause. Many women have IUDs placed during perimenopause for bleeding. Can you comment about IUD use during perimenopause and postmenopause?
 

Dr. Kaunitz: In older reproductive-age women who already have a progestin-releasing IUD placed, as they get closer to menopause when vasomotor symptoms (VMS) might occur, if these symptoms are bothersome, the presence or placement of a progestin-releasing IUD can facilitate treatment of perimenopausal VMS with estrogen therapy.

Progestin IUDs cause profound endometrial suppression, reduce bleeding and often, over time, cause users to become amenorrheic.⁷

The Mirena package insert states, “Amenorrhea develops in about 20% of users by one year.”² By year 3 and continuing through year 8, the prevalence of amenorrhea with the 52-mg LNG-IUD is 35% to 40%.⁸ From a study by Nanette Santoro, MD, and colleagues, we know that, in perimenopausal women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place, who are experiencing bothersome VMS, adding transdermal estrogen is very effective in treating and suppressing those hot flashes. In her small clinical trial, among participants with perimenopausal bothersome VMS with an IUD in place, half were randomized to use of transdermal estradiol and then compared with women who did not get the estradiol patch. There was excellent relief of perimenopausal hot flashes with the combination of the progestin IUD for endometrial suppression and transdermal estrogen to relieve hot flashes.⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: Which women would not be good candidates for the use of this combination?

Dr. Kaunitz: We know that, as women age, the prevalence of conditions that are contraindications to combination contraceptives (estrogen-progestin pills, patches, or rings) starts to increase. Specifically, we see more: hypertension, diabetes, and high body mass index (BMI), or obesity. We also know that migraine headaches in women older than age 35 years is another condition in which ACOG and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would not recommend use of combination contraceptives.^10,11 These older perimenopausal women may be excellent candidates for a progestin-only releasing IUD combined with use of transdermal menopausal doses of estradiol if needed for VMS.

Dr. Goldstein: I do want to add that, in those patients who don’t have these comorbidities, combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives do a very nice job of ovarian suppression and will prevent the erratic production of estradiol, which, in my experience, often results in not only irregular bleeding but also possible exacerbation of perimenopausal mood symptoms.

Dr. Kaunitz: I agree, Steve. The ideal older reproductive-age candidate for combination pills, patch, or ring would be a slender, healthy, nonsmoking woman with normal blood pressure. Such women would be a fairly small subgroup of my practice, but they can safely continue combination contraceptives right through menopause. Consistent with CDC and ACOG guidance, rather than checking gonadotropins to “determine when menopause has occurred,” (which is, in fact, not an evidence-based approach to diagnosing menopause in this setting), such women can continue the combination contraceptive right up until age 55—the likelihood that women are still going to be ovulating or at risk for pregnancy becomes vanishingly small at that age.^11,12 Women in their mid-50s can either seamlessly transition to use of systemic estrogen-progestin menopausal therapy or go off hormones completely.

Continue to: The IUD and HMB...

The IUD and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, there’s been some good literature on the best management options for women with HMB. What is the most current evidence?

Dr. Goldstein: I think that the retiring of the terms menorrhagia and metrorrhagia may have been premature because HMB implies cyclical bleeding, and this population of women with HMB will typically do quite well. Women who have what we used to call metrorrhagia or irregular bleeding, by definition, need endometrial evaluation to be sure they don’t have some sort of organic pathology. It would be a mistake for clinicians to use an LNG-IUD in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) that has not been appropriately evaluated.

If we understand that we are discussing HMB, a Cochrane Review from 2022¹³ suggests that an LNG intrauterine system is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in perimenopausal women with HMB. Antifibrinolytics appeared second best, while long-cycle progestogens came in third place. Evidence on perception of improvement in satisfaction was ranked as low certainty. That same review found that hysterectomy was the best treatment for reducing bleeding, obviously, followed by resectoscopic endometrial ablation or a nonresectoscopic global endometrial ablation.

The evidence rating was low certainty regarding the likelihood that placing an LNG-IUD in women with HMB will result in amenorrhea, and I think that’s a very important point. The expectation of patients should be reduced or a significantly reduced amount of their HMB, not necessarily amenorrhea. Certainly, minimally invasive hysterectomy will result in total amenorrhea and may have a larger increase in satisfaction, but it has its own set of other kinds of possible complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: In an industry-funded, international multicenter trial,¹⁴ women with documented HMB (hemoglobin was eluted from soiled sanitary products), with menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or more per cycle, were randomized to placement of an LNG 52-mg IUD (Mirena) or cyclical medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)—oral progestin use.

Although menstrual blood loss declined in both groups, it declined dramatically more in women with an IUD placed, and specifically with the IUD, menstrual blood loss declined by 129 mL on average, whereas the decline in menstrual blood loss with cyclical MPA was 18 mL. This data, along with earlier European data,¹⁵ which showed similar findings in women with HMB led to the approval of the Mirena progestin IUD for a second indication to treat HMB in 2009.

I also want to point out that, in the May 2023 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Creinin and colleagues published a similar trial in women with HMB showing, once again, that progestin IUDs (52-mg LNG-IUD, Liletta) are extremely effective in reducing HMB.¹⁶ There is crystal clear evidence from randomized trials that both 52-mg LNG-IUDs, Mirena and Liletta, are very effective in reducing HMB and, in fact, are contributing to many women who in the past would have proceeded with surgery, such as ablation or hysterectomy, to control their HMB.

Oral contraception

Dr. Pinkerton: What about using low-dose continuous oral contraceptives noncyclically for women with HMB?

Dr. Goldstein: I do that all the time. It is interesting that Dr. Kaunitz mentions his patient population. It’s why we understand that one size does not fit all. You need to see patients one at a time, and if they are good candidates for a combined estrogen-progestin contraception, whether it’s pills, patches, or rings, giving that continuously does a very nice job in reducing HMB and straightening out some of the other symptoms that these perimenopausal women will have.

IUD risks

Dr. Pinkerton: We all know about use of low-dose oral contraceptives for management of AUB, and we use them, although we worry a little bit about breast cancer risk. Dr. Levy, please comment on the risks with IUDs of expulsions and perforations. What are the downsides of IUDs?

Dr. Levy: Beyond the cost, although it is a minimally invasive procedure, IUD insertion can be an invasive procedure for a patient to undergo; expulsions can occur.¹⁷ We know that a substantial percentage of perimenopausal women will have fibroids. Although many fibroids are not located in the uterine cavity, the expulsion rate with HMB for an LNG-IUD can be higher,^13,16,18,19 perhaps because of local prostaglandin release with an increase in uterine contractility. There is a low incidence of perforations, but they do happen, particularly among women with scars in the uterus or who have a severely anteflexed or retroflexed uterus, and women with cervical stenosis, for example, if they have had a LEEP procedure, etc. Even though progestin IUDs are outstanding tools in our toolbox, they are invasive to some extent, and they do have the possibility of complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: As Dr. Levy points out, although placement of an IUD may be considered an invasive procedure, it is also an office-based procedure, so women can drive home or drive back to work afterwards without the disruption in their life and the potential complications associated with surgery and anesthesia.

Continue to: Concerns with malpositioning...

Dr. Pinkerton: After placement of an IUD, during a follow-up visit, sometimes you can’t visualize the string. The ultrasonography report may reveal, “IUD appears to be in the right place within the endometrium.” Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how we should use ultrasound when we can’t visualize or find the IUD string, or if the patient complains of abdominal pain, lower abdominal discomfort, or irregular bleeding or spotting and we become concerned about IUD malposition?

Dr. Goldstein: Ultrasound is not really required after an uncomplicated placement of an IUD or during routine management of women who have no problems who are using an IUD. In patients who present with pain or some abnormal bleeding, however, sometimes it is the IUD being malpositioned. A very interesting study by the late great Beryl Benacerraf²⁰ showed that there was a statistically significant higher incidence of the IUD being poorly positioned when patients have pain or bleeding (FIGURE 1). It was not always apparent on 2D ultrasonography. Using a standard transvaginal ultrasound of the long access plane, the IUD may appear to be very centrally located. However, if you do a 3D coronal section, not infrequently in these patients with any pain or bleeding, one of the arms has pierced the myometrium (FIGURE 2). This can actually be a source of pain and bleeding.

It’s also very interesting when you talk about perforation. I became aware of a big to-do in the medical/legal world about the possibility of the IUD migrating through the uterine cavity.²¹ This just does not exist, as was already pointed out. If the IUD is really going to go anywhere, if it’s properly placed, it’s going to be expelled through an open cervix. I do believe that, if you have pierced the myometrium through uterine contractility over time, some of these IUDs could work their way through the myometrium and somehow come out of the uterus either totally or partially. I think ultrasound is invaluable in patients with pain and bleeding, but I think you need to have an ultrasound lab capable of doing a 3D coronal section.

Progestin IUDs for HT replacement: Benefits/risks

Dr. Pinkerton: Many clinicians are excited that they can use essentially estrogen alone for women who have a progestin IUD in place. What about the possible off-label use of the progestin IUD to replace oral progestogen for hormone therapy (HT)? Dr. Kaunitz, are there any studies using this for postmenopausal HT (with a reminder that the IUD is not FDA approved for this purpose)?

Dr. Kaunitz: We have data from Europe indicating that, in menopausal women using systemic estrogen, the full-size LNG 52 IUD—Mirena or Liletta—provides excellent endometrial suppression.²² Where we don’t have data is with the smaller IUDs, which would be Kyleena and Skyla, which release smaller amounts of progestin each day into the endometrial cavity.

I have a number of patients, most of them women who started use of a progestin IUD as older reproductive-age women and then started systemic estrogen for treatment of perimenopausal hot flashes and then continued the use of their IUD plus systemic estrogen in treating postmenopausal hot flashes. The IUD is very useful in this setting, but as you pointed out, Dr. Pinkerton, this does represent off-label use.

Dr. Pinkerton: I know this use does not affect plasma lipids or cardiovascular risk markers, although users seem to report that the IUD has improved their quality of life. The question comes up, what are the benefits on cancer risk for using an IUD?

Dr. Levy: It’s such a great question because, as we talk about the balance of risks and benefits for anything that we are offering to our patients, it is really important to focus on some of the benefits. For both the copper and the LNG-IUD, there is a reduction in endometrial cancer,²² as well as pretty good data with the copper IUD about a reduction in cervical cancer.²³ Those data are a little bit less clear for the LNG-IUD.

Interestingly, at least one meta-analysis published in 2020 shows about a 30% reduction in ovarian cancer risk with the LNG-IUD.²⁴ We need to focus our patients on these other benefits. They tend to focus on the risks, and, of course, the media blows up the risks, but the benefits are quite substantial beyond just reducing HMB and providing contraception.

Dr. Pinkerton: As Dr. Kaunitz said, when you use this IUD, with its primarily local uterine progestin effects, it’s more like using estrogen alone without as much systemic progestin. Recently I wrote an editorial on the benefits of estrogen alone on the risk of breast cancer, primarily based on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational long-term 18-year cumulative follow-up. When estrogen alone was prescribed to women after a hysterectomy, estrogen therapy used at menopause did not increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, and was associated with decreased mortality.²⁵ However, the nurse’s health study has suggested that longer-term use may be increased with estrogen alone.²⁶ For women in the WHI with an intact uterus who used estrogen, oral MPA slightly increased the risk for breast cancer, and this elevated risk persisted even after discontinuation. This leads us to the question, what are the risks of breast cancer with progestin IUD use?

I recently reviewed the literature, and the answer is, it’s mixed. The FDA has put language into the package label that acknowledges a potential breast cancer risk for women who use a progestin IUD,²⁷ and that warning states, “Women who currently have or have had breast cancer or suspect breast cancer should not use hormonal contraception because some breast cancers are hormone sensitive.” The label goes on to say, “Observational studies of the risk of breast cancer with the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUS don’t provide conclusive evidence of increased risk.” Thus, there is no conclusive answer as to whether there is a possible link of progestin IUDs to breast cancer.

What I tell my patients is that research is inconclusive. However, it’s unlikely for a 52-mg LNG-IUD to significantly increase a woman’s breast cancer risk, except possibly in those already at high risk from other risk factors. I tell them that breast cancer is listed in the package insert as a potential risk. I could not find any data on whether adding a low-dose estradiol patch would further increase that risk. So I counsel women about potential risk, but tell them that I don’t have any strong evidence of risk.

Continue to: Dr. Goldstein...

Dr. Goldstein: If you look in the package insert for Mirena,² similar to Liletta, certainly the serum levels of LNG are lower than that for combination oral contraceptives. For the IUD progestins, they are not localized only to the uterus, and LNG levels range from about 150 to 200 µg/mL up to 60 months. It’s greater at 12 months, at about 180 µg/mL,at 24 months it was 192 µg/mL, and by 60 months it was 159 µg/mL. It’s important to realize that there is some systemic absorption of progestin with progestin IUDs, and it is not completely a local effect.

JoAnn, you mentioned the WHI data,²⁵ and just to specify, it was not the estrogen-only arm, it was the conjugated equine estrogen-only arm of the WHI. I don’t think that estradiol alone increases breast cancer risk (although there are no good prospective, follow-through, 18-year study data, like the WHI), but I think readers need to understand the difference in the estrogen type.

Endometrial evaluation. My question for the panel is as follows. I agree that the use of the progestin-releasing IUD is very nice for that transition to menopause. I do believe it provides endometrial protection, but we know from other studies that, when we give continuous combined HT, about 21% to 26% of patients will experience some bleeding/staining, responding in the first 4-week cycles, and it can be as high as 9% at 1 year. If I have a patient who bleeds on continuous combined HT, I will evaluate her endometrium, usually just with a simple transvaginal ultrasound. If an IUD is in place, and the patient now begins to have some irregular bleeding, how do you evaluate her with the IUD in place?

Dr. Levy: That is a huge challenge. We know from a recent paper,²⁸ that the endometrial thickness, while an excellent measure for Caucasian and European women, may be a poor marker for endometrial pathology in African-American women. What we thought we knew, which was, if the stripe is 4 mL or less, we can forget about it, I think in our more recent research that is not so true. So you bring up a great point, what do you do? The most reliable evaluation will be with an office hysteroscopy, where you can really look at the entire cavity and for tiny, little polyps and other things. But then we are off label because the use of hysteroscopy with an IUD in place is off label. So we are really in a conundrum.

Dr. Pinkerton: Also, if you do an endometrial biopsy, you might dislodge the IUD. If you think that you are going to take the IUD out, it may not matter if you dislodge it. I will often obtain a transvaginal ultrasound to help me figure out the next step, and maybe look at the dosing of the estrogen and progestin—but you can’t monitor an IUD with blood levels. You are in a vacuum of trying to figure out the best thing to do.

Dr. Kaunitz: One of the hats I wear here in Jacksonville is Director of GYN Ultrasound. I have a fair amount of experience doing endometrial biopsies in women with progestin IUDs in place under abdominal ultrasound guidance and keeping a close eye on the position of the IUD. In the first dozen or so such procedures I did, I was quite concerned about dislodging the IUD. It hasn’t happened yet, and it gives me some reassurance to be able to image the IUD and your endometrial suction curette inside the cavity as you are obtaining endometrial sampling. I have substantial experience now doing that, and so far, no problems. I do counsel all such women in advance that there is some chance I could dislodge their IUD.

Dr. Goldstein: In addition to dislodging the IUD, are you not concerned that, if the pathology is not global, that a blind endometrial sampling may be fraught with some error?

Dr. Kaunitz: The endometrium in women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place tends to be very well suppressed. Although one might occasionally find, for instance, a polyp in that setting, I have not run into, and I don’t expect to encounter going forward, endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in women with current use of a progestin IUD. It’s possible but unlikely.

Dr. Levy: The progestin IUD will counterbalance a type-1 endometrial cancer—an endometrial cancer related to hyperstimulation by estrogen. It will not do anything, to my knowledge, to counterbalance a type 2. I think the art of medicine is, you do the best you can with the first episode of bleeding, and if she persists in her bleeding, we have to persevere and continue to evaluate her.

Dr. Goldstein: I agree 100%.

Dr. Pinkerton: We all agree with you. That’s a really good point.

Continue to: Case examinations...

Case examinations

CASE 1 Woman with intramural fibroids

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, you have a 48-year-old Black woman who has heavy but regular menstrual bleeding with multiple fibroids (the largest is about 4 to 5 cm, they look intramural, with some distortion of the cavity but not a submucous myoma, and the endometrial depth is 9 cm). Would you insert an IUD, and would you recommend an endometrial biopsy first?

Dr. Goldstein: I am not a huge fan of blind endometrial sampling, and I do think that we use the “biopsy” somewhat inappropriately since sampling is not a directed biopsy. This became obvious in the landmark paper by Guido et al in 1995 and was adopted by ACOG only in 2012.²⁹ Cancers that occupy less than 50% of the endometrial surface area are often missed with such blind sampling. Thus I would not perform an endometrial biopsy first, but would rather rely on properly timed and performed transvaginal ultrasound to rule out any concurrent endometrial disease. I think a lot of patients who have HMB, not only because of their fibroids but also often just due to the surface area of their uterine cavity being increased—so essentially there is more blood volume when they bleed. However, you said that in this case the patient has regular menstrual bleeding, so I am assuming that she is still ovulatory. She may have some adenomyosis. She may have a large uterine cavity. I think she is an excellent candidate for an LNG-releasing IUD to reduce menstrual blood flow significantly. It will not necessarily give her amenorrhea, and it may give her some irregular bleeding. Then at some distant point, say in 5 or 6 months if she does have some irregular staining or bleeding, I would feel much better about the fact that nothing has developed as long as I knew that the endometrium was devoid of pathology when I started.

CASE 2 Woman with family history of breast cancer

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy, a 44-year-old woman has a family history of breast cancer in her mother at age 72, but she still needs contraceptionbecause of that unintended pregnancy risk in the 40s, and she wants something that is not going to increase her risk of breast cancer. What would you use, and how would you counsel her if you decided to use a progestin IUD?

Dr. Levy: The data are mixed,^30-33 but whatever the risk, it is miniscule, and I would bring up the CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria.¹¹ For a patient with a family history of breast cancer, for use of the progestin IUD, it is a 1—no contraindications. What I tend to tell my patients is, if you are worried about breast cancer, watch how much alcohol you are drinking and maintain regular exercise. There are so many preventive things that we can do to reduce risk of breast cancer when she needs contraception. If there is any increase in risk, it is so miniscule that I would very strongly recommend a progestin IUD for her.

Dr. Pinkerton: In addition, in recognizing the different densities of breast, dense breast density could lead to supplemental screening, which also could give her some reassurance that we are adequately screening for breast cancer.

CASE 3 Woman with IUD and VMS
 

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, you have a 52-year-old overweight female. She has been using a progestin IUD for 4 years, is amenorrheic, but now she is having moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms despite the IUD in place. You have talked to her about risks and benefits of HT, and she is interested in starting it. I know we talked about the studies, but I want to know what you are going to tell her. How do you counsel her about off-label use?

Dr. Kaunitz: The most important issue related to treating vasomotor symptoms in this patient is the route of systemic estrogen. Understandably, women’s biggest concern regarding the risks of systemic estrogen-progestin therapy is breast cancer. However, statistically, by far the biggest risk associated with oral estrogen-progestogen therapy, is elevated risk of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We have seen this, with a number of studies, and the WHI made it crystal clear with risks of oral conjugated equine estrogen at the dose of 0.625 mg daily. Oral estradiol 1 mg daily is also associated with a similar elevated risk of venous thrombosis. We also know that age and BMI are both independent risk factors for thrombosis. So, for a woman in her 50s who has a BMI > 30 mg/kg², I don’t want to further elevate her risk of thrombosis by giving her oral estrogen, whether it is estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen. This is a patient in whom I would be comfortable using transdermal (patch) estradiol, perhaps starting with a standard dose of 0.05 mg weekly or twice weekly patch, keeping in mind that 0.05 mg in the setting of transdermal estrogen refer to the daily or to the 24-hour release rate. The 1.0 mg of oral estradiol and 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogen refers to the mg quantity of estrogen in each tablet. This is a source of great confusion for clinicians.

If, during follow-up, the 0.05 mg estradiol patch is not sufficient to substantially reduce symptoms, we could go up, for instance, to a 0.075 mg estradiol patch. We know very clearly from a variety of observational studies, including a very large UK study,³⁴ that in contrast with oral estrogen, transdermal estradiol is safer from the perspective of thrombosis.

Insurance coverage for IUDs

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy: Can you discuss IUDs and the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to cover contraceptive services?

Dr. Levy: Unfortunately, we do not know whether this benefit will continue based on a very recent finding from a judge in Texas that ruled the preventive benefits of the ACA were illegal.³⁵ We don’t know what will happen going forward. What I will say is that, unfortunately, many insurance companies have not preserved the meaning of “cover all things,” so what we are finding is that, for example, they only have to cover one type in a class. The FDA defined 18 classes of contraceptives, and a hormonal IUD is one class, so they can decide that they are only going to cover one of the four IUDS. And then women don’t have access to the other three, some of which might be more appropriate for them than another.

The other thing very relevant to this conversation is that, if you use an ICD-10 code for menorrhagia, for HMB, it no longer lives within that ACA preventive care requirement of coverage for contraceptives, and now she is going to owe a big deductible or a copay. If you are practicing in an institution that does not allow the use of IUDs for contraception, like a Catholic institution where I used to practice, you will want to use that ICD-10 code for HMB. But if you want it offered with no out-of-pocket cost for the patient, you need to use the preventive medicine codes and the contraception code. These little nuances for us can make a huge difference for our patients.

Dr. Pinkerton: Thank you for that reminder. I want to thank our panelists, Dr. Levy, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Kaunitz, for providing us with such a great mix of evidence and expert opinion and also giving a benefit of their vast experience as award-winning gynecologists. Hopefully, today you have learned the benefits of the progestin IUD not only for contraception in reproductive years and perimenopause but also for treatment of HMB, and the potential benefit due to the more prolonged effectiveness of the IUDs for endometrial protection in postmenopause. This allows less progestin risk, essentially estrogen alone for postmenopausal HT. Unsolved questions remain about whether there is a risk of breast cancer with their use, but there is a clear benefit of protecting against pregnancy and endometrial cancer. ●

Illustration: Kimberly Martens for OBG Management

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are now used by more than 15% of US contraceptors. The majority of these IUDs release the progestin levonorgestrel, and with now longer extended use of the IUDs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),^1-3 they become even more attractive for use for contraception,control of menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) during reproductive years and perimenopause, and potentially, although not FDA approved for this purpose, postmenopause for endometrial protection in estrogen users. In this roundtable discussion, we will look at some of the benefits of the IUD for contraception effectiveness and control of bleeding, as well as the potential risks if used for postmenopausal women.

Progestin IUDs and contraception

JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, NCMP: Dr. Kaunitz, what are the contraceptive benefits of progestin IUDs during perimenopause?
 

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP: We know fertility declines as women approach menopause. However, when pregnancy occurs in older reproductive-age women, the pregnancies are often unintended, as reflected by high rates of induced abortion in this population. In addition, the prevalence of maternal comorbidities (during pregnancy and delivery) is higher in older reproductive-age women, with the maternal mortality rate more than 5 times higher compared with that of younger women.⁴ Two recently published clinical trials assessed the extended use of full-size IUDs containing 52 mg of levonor-gestrel (LNG), with the brand names Mirena and Liletta.^1,2 The data from these trials confirmed that both IUDs remain highly effective for up to 8 years of use, and currently, both devices are approved for up to 8 years of use. One caveat is that, in the unusual occurrence of a pregnancy being diagnosed in a woman using an IUD, we as clinicians, must be alert to the high prevalence of ectopic pregnancies in this setting.

Progestin IUDs and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how well progestin IUDs work for HMB?

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD: Many women who need contraception will use these devices for suppressing HMB, and they can be quite effective, if the diagnosis truly is HMB, at reducing bleeding.⁵ But that efficacy in bleeding reduction may not be quite as long as the efficacy in pregnancy prevention.⁶ In my experience, among women using IUDs specifically for their HMB, good bleeding control may require changing the IUD at 3 to 5 years.

Barbara S. Levy, MD: When inserting a LNG-IUD for menorrhagia in the perimenopausal time frame, sometimes I will do a progestin withdrawal first, which will thin the endometrium and induce withdrawal bleeding because, in my experience, if you place an IUD in someone with perimenopausal bleeding, you may end up with a lot of breakthrough bleeding.

Perimenopause and hot flashes

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, we have learned that hot flashes often occur and become bothersome to women during perimenopause. Many women have IUDs placed during perimenopause for bleeding. Can you comment about IUD use during perimenopause and postmenopause?
 

Dr. Kaunitz: In older reproductive-age women who already have a progestin-releasing IUD placed, as they get closer to menopause when vasomotor symptoms (VMS) might occur, if these symptoms are bothersome, the presence or placement of a progestin-releasing IUD can facilitate treatment of perimenopausal VMS with estrogen therapy.

Progestin IUDs cause profound endometrial suppression, reduce bleeding and often, over time, cause users to become amenorrheic.⁷

The Mirena package insert states, “Amenorrhea develops in about 20% of users by one year.”² By year 3 and continuing through year 8, the prevalence of amenorrhea with the 52-mg LNG-IUD is 35% to 40%.⁸ From a study by Nanette Santoro, MD, and colleagues, we know that, in perimenopausal women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place, who are experiencing bothersome VMS, adding transdermal estrogen is very effective in treating and suppressing those hot flashes. In her small clinical trial, among participants with perimenopausal bothersome VMS with an IUD in place, half were randomized to use of transdermal estradiol and then compared with women who did not get the estradiol patch. There was excellent relief of perimenopausal hot flashes with the combination of the progestin IUD for endometrial suppression and transdermal estrogen to relieve hot flashes.⁹

Dr. Pinkerton: Which women would not be good candidates for the use of this combination?

Dr. Kaunitz: We know that, as women age, the prevalence of conditions that are contraindications to combination contraceptives (estrogen-progestin pills, patches, or rings) starts to increase. Specifically, we see more: hypertension, diabetes, and high body mass index (BMI), or obesity. We also know that migraine headaches in women older than age 35 years is another condition in which ACOG and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would not recommend use of combination contraceptives.^10,11 These older perimenopausal women may be excellent candidates for a progestin-only releasing IUD combined with use of transdermal menopausal doses of estradiol if needed for VMS.

Dr. Goldstein: I do want to add that, in those patients who don’t have these comorbidities, combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives do a very nice job of ovarian suppression and will prevent the erratic production of estradiol, which, in my experience, often results in not only irregular bleeding but also possible exacerbation of perimenopausal mood symptoms.

Dr. Kaunitz: I agree, Steve. The ideal older reproductive-age candidate for combination pills, patch, or ring would be a slender, healthy, nonsmoking woman with normal blood pressure. Such women would be a fairly small subgroup of my practice, but they can safely continue combination contraceptives right through menopause. Consistent with CDC and ACOG guidance, rather than checking gonadotropins to “determine when menopause has occurred,” (which is, in fact, not an evidence-based approach to diagnosing menopause in this setting), such women can continue the combination contraceptive right up until age 55—the likelihood that women are still going to be ovulating or at risk for pregnancy becomes vanishingly small at that age.^11,12 Women in their mid-50s can either seamlessly transition to use of systemic estrogen-progestin menopausal therapy or go off hormones completely.

Continue to: The IUD and HMB...

The IUD and HMB

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, there’s been some good literature on the best management options for women with HMB. What is the most current evidence?

Dr. Goldstein: I think that the retiring of the terms menorrhagia and metrorrhagia may have been premature because HMB implies cyclical bleeding, and this population of women with HMB will typically do quite well. Women who have what we used to call metrorrhagia or irregular bleeding, by definition, need endometrial evaluation to be sure they don’t have some sort of organic pathology. It would be a mistake for clinicians to use an LNG-IUD in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) that has not been appropriately evaluated.

If we understand that we are discussing HMB, a Cochrane Review from 2022¹³ suggests that an LNG intrauterine system is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss in perimenopausal women with HMB. Antifibrinolytics appeared second best, while long-cycle progestogens came in third place. Evidence on perception of improvement in satisfaction was ranked as low certainty. That same review found that hysterectomy was the best treatment for reducing bleeding, obviously, followed by resectoscopic endometrial ablation or a nonresectoscopic global endometrial ablation.

The evidence rating was low certainty regarding the likelihood that placing an LNG-IUD in women with HMB will result in amenorrhea, and I think that’s a very important point. The expectation of patients should be reduced or a significantly reduced amount of their HMB, not necessarily amenorrhea. Certainly, minimally invasive hysterectomy will result in total amenorrhea and may have a larger increase in satisfaction, but it has its own set of other kinds of possible complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: In an industry-funded, international multicenter trial,¹⁴ women with documented HMB (hemoglobin was eluted from soiled sanitary products), with menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or more per cycle, were randomized to placement of an LNG 52-mg IUD (Mirena) or cyclical medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)—oral progestin use.

Although menstrual blood loss declined in both groups, it declined dramatically more in women with an IUD placed, and specifically with the IUD, menstrual blood loss declined by 129 mL on average, whereas the decline in menstrual blood loss with cyclical MPA was 18 mL. This data, along with earlier European data,¹⁵ which showed similar findings in women with HMB led to the approval of the Mirena progestin IUD for a second indication to treat HMB in 2009.

I also want to point out that, in the May 2023 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Creinin and colleagues published a similar trial in women with HMB showing, once again, that progestin IUDs (52-mg LNG-IUD, Liletta) are extremely effective in reducing HMB.¹⁶ There is crystal clear evidence from randomized trials that both 52-mg LNG-IUDs, Mirena and Liletta, are very effective in reducing HMB and, in fact, are contributing to many women who in the past would have proceeded with surgery, such as ablation or hysterectomy, to control their HMB.

Oral contraception

Dr. Pinkerton: What about using low-dose continuous oral contraceptives noncyclically for women with HMB?

Dr. Goldstein: I do that all the time. It is interesting that Dr. Kaunitz mentions his patient population. It’s why we understand that one size does not fit all. You need to see patients one at a time, and if they are good candidates for a combined estrogen-progestin contraception, whether it’s pills, patches, or rings, giving that continuously does a very nice job in reducing HMB and straightening out some of the other symptoms that these perimenopausal women will have.

IUD risks

Dr. Pinkerton: We all know about use of low-dose oral contraceptives for management of AUB, and we use them, although we worry a little bit about breast cancer risk. Dr. Levy, please comment on the risks with IUDs of expulsions and perforations. What are the downsides of IUDs?

Dr. Levy: Beyond the cost, although it is a minimally invasive procedure, IUD insertion can be an invasive procedure for a patient to undergo; expulsions can occur.¹⁷ We know that a substantial percentage of perimenopausal women will have fibroids. Although many fibroids are not located in the uterine cavity, the expulsion rate with HMB for an LNG-IUD can be higher,^13,16,18,19 perhaps because of local prostaglandin release with an increase in uterine contractility. There is a low incidence of perforations, but they do happen, particularly among women with scars in the uterus or who have a severely anteflexed or retroflexed uterus, and women with cervical stenosis, for example, if they have had a LEEP procedure, etc. Even though progestin IUDs are outstanding tools in our toolbox, they are invasive to some extent, and they do have the possibility of complications.

Dr. Kaunitz: As Dr. Levy points out, although placement of an IUD may be considered an invasive procedure, it is also an office-based procedure, so women can drive home or drive back to work afterwards without the disruption in their life and the potential complications associated with surgery and anesthesia.

Continue to: Concerns with malpositioning...

Dr. Pinkerton: After placement of an IUD, during a follow-up visit, sometimes you can’t visualize the string. The ultrasonography report may reveal, “IUD appears to be in the right place within the endometrium.” Dr. Goldstein, can you comment on how we should use ultrasound when we can’t visualize or find the IUD string, or if the patient complains of abdominal pain, lower abdominal discomfort, or irregular bleeding or spotting and we become concerned about IUD malposition?

Dr. Goldstein: Ultrasound is not really required after an uncomplicated placement of an IUD or during routine management of women who have no problems who are using an IUD. In patients who present with pain or some abnormal bleeding, however, sometimes it is the IUD being malpositioned. A very interesting study by the late great Beryl Benacerraf²⁰ showed that there was a statistically significant higher incidence of the IUD being poorly positioned when patients have pain or bleeding (FIGURE 1). It was not always apparent on 2D ultrasonography. Using a standard transvaginal ultrasound of the long access plane, the IUD may appear to be very centrally located. However, if you do a 3D coronal section, not infrequently in these patients with any pain or bleeding, one of the arms has pierced the myometrium (FIGURE 2). This can actually be a source of pain and bleeding.

It’s also very interesting when you talk about perforation. I became aware of a big to-do in the medical/legal world about the possibility of the IUD migrating through the uterine cavity.²¹ This just does not exist, as was already pointed out. If the IUD is really going to go anywhere, if it’s properly placed, it’s going to be expelled through an open cervix. I do believe that, if you have pierced the myometrium through uterine contractility over time, some of these IUDs could work their way through the myometrium and somehow come out of the uterus either totally or partially. I think ultrasound is invaluable in patients with pain and bleeding, but I think you need to have an ultrasound lab capable of doing a 3D coronal section.

Progestin IUDs for HT replacement: Benefits/risks

Dr. Pinkerton: Many clinicians are excited that they can use essentially estrogen alone for women who have a progestin IUD in place. What about the possible off-label use of the progestin IUD to replace oral progestogen for hormone therapy (HT)? Dr. Kaunitz, are there any studies using this for postmenopausal HT (with a reminder that the IUD is not FDA approved for this purpose)?

Dr. Kaunitz: We have data from Europe indicating that, in menopausal women using systemic estrogen, the full-size LNG 52 IUD—Mirena or Liletta—provides excellent endometrial suppression.²² Where we don’t have data is with the smaller IUDs, which would be Kyleena and Skyla, which release smaller amounts of progestin each day into the endometrial cavity.

I have a number of patients, most of them women who started use of a progestin IUD as older reproductive-age women and then started systemic estrogen for treatment of perimenopausal hot flashes and then continued the use of their IUD plus systemic estrogen in treating postmenopausal hot flashes. The IUD is very useful in this setting, but as you pointed out, Dr. Pinkerton, this does represent off-label use.

Dr. Pinkerton: I know this use does not affect plasma lipids or cardiovascular risk markers, although users seem to report that the IUD has improved their quality of life. The question comes up, what are the benefits on cancer risk for using an IUD?

Dr. Levy: It’s such a great question because, as we talk about the balance of risks and benefits for anything that we are offering to our patients, it is really important to focus on some of the benefits. For both the copper and the LNG-IUD, there is a reduction in endometrial cancer,²² as well as pretty good data with the copper IUD about a reduction in cervical cancer.²³ Those data are a little bit less clear for the LNG-IUD.

Interestingly, at least one meta-analysis published in 2020 shows about a 30% reduction in ovarian cancer risk with the LNG-IUD.²⁴ We need to focus our patients on these other benefits. They tend to focus on the risks, and, of course, the media blows up the risks, but the benefits are quite substantial beyond just reducing HMB and providing contraception.

Dr. Pinkerton: As Dr. Kaunitz said, when you use this IUD, with its primarily local uterine progestin effects, it’s more like using estrogen alone without as much systemic progestin. Recently I wrote an editorial on the benefits of estrogen alone on the risk of breast cancer, primarily based on the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) observational long-term 18-year cumulative follow-up. When estrogen alone was prescribed to women after a hysterectomy, estrogen therapy used at menopause did not increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, and was associated with decreased mortality.²⁵ However, the nurse’s health study has suggested that longer-term use may be increased with estrogen alone.²⁶ For women in the WHI with an intact uterus who used estrogen, oral MPA slightly increased the risk for breast cancer, and this elevated risk persisted even after discontinuation. This leads us to the question, what are the risks of breast cancer with progestin IUD use?

I recently reviewed the literature, and the answer is, it’s mixed. The FDA has put language into the package label that acknowledges a potential breast cancer risk for women who use a progestin IUD,²⁷ and that warning states, “Women who currently have or have had breast cancer or suspect breast cancer should not use hormonal contraception because some breast cancers are hormone sensitive.” The label goes on to say, “Observational studies of the risk of breast cancer with the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUS don’t provide conclusive evidence of increased risk.” Thus, there is no conclusive answer as to whether there is a possible link of progestin IUDs to breast cancer.

What I tell my patients is that research is inconclusive. However, it’s unlikely for a 52-mg LNG-IUD to significantly increase a woman’s breast cancer risk, except possibly in those already at high risk from other risk factors. I tell them that breast cancer is listed in the package insert as a potential risk. I could not find any data on whether adding a low-dose estradiol patch would further increase that risk. So I counsel women about potential risk, but tell them that I don’t have any strong evidence of risk.

Continue to: Dr. Goldstein...

Dr. Goldstein: If you look in the package insert for Mirena,² similar to Liletta, certainly the serum levels of LNG are lower than that for combination oral contraceptives. For the IUD progestins, they are not localized only to the uterus, and LNG levels range from about 150 to 200 µg/mL up to 60 months. It’s greater at 12 months, at about 180 µg/mL,at 24 months it was 192 µg/mL, and by 60 months it was 159 µg/mL. It’s important to realize that there is some systemic absorption of progestin with progestin IUDs, and it is not completely a local effect.

JoAnn, you mentioned the WHI data,²⁵ and just to specify, it was not the estrogen-only arm, it was the conjugated equine estrogen-only arm of the WHI. I don’t think that estradiol alone increases breast cancer risk (although there are no good prospective, follow-through, 18-year study data, like the WHI), but I think readers need to understand the difference in the estrogen type.

Endometrial evaluation. My question for the panel is as follows. I agree that the use of the progestin-releasing IUD is very nice for that transition to menopause. I do believe it provides endometrial protection, but we know from other studies that, when we give continuous combined HT, about 21% to 26% of patients will experience some bleeding/staining, responding in the first 4-week cycles, and it can be as high as 9% at 1 year. If I have a patient who bleeds on continuous combined HT, I will evaluate her endometrium, usually just with a simple transvaginal ultrasound. If an IUD is in place, and the patient now begins to have some irregular bleeding, how do you evaluate her with the IUD in place?

Dr. Levy: That is a huge challenge. We know from a recent paper,²⁸ that the endometrial thickness, while an excellent measure for Caucasian and European women, may be a poor marker for endometrial pathology in African-American women. What we thought we knew, which was, if the stripe is 4 mL or less, we can forget about it, I think in our more recent research that is not so true. So you bring up a great point, what do you do? The most reliable evaluation will be with an office hysteroscopy, where you can really look at the entire cavity and for tiny, little polyps and other things. But then we are off label because the use of hysteroscopy with an IUD in place is off label. So we are really in a conundrum.

Dr. Pinkerton: Also, if you do an endometrial biopsy, you might dislodge the IUD. If you think that you are going to take the IUD out, it may not matter if you dislodge it. I will often obtain a transvaginal ultrasound to help me figure out the next step, and maybe look at the dosing of the estrogen and progestin—but you can’t monitor an IUD with blood levels. You are in a vacuum of trying to figure out the best thing to do.

Dr. Kaunitz: One of the hats I wear here in Jacksonville is Director of GYN Ultrasound. I have a fair amount of experience doing endometrial biopsies in women with progestin IUDs in place under abdominal ultrasound guidance and keeping a close eye on the position of the IUD. In the first dozen or so such procedures I did, I was quite concerned about dislodging the IUD. It hasn’t happened yet, and it gives me some reassurance to be able to image the IUD and your endometrial suction curette inside the cavity as you are obtaining endometrial sampling. I have substantial experience now doing that, and so far, no problems. I do counsel all such women in advance that there is some chance I could dislodge their IUD.

Dr. Goldstein: In addition to dislodging the IUD, are you not concerned that, if the pathology is not global, that a blind endometrial sampling may be fraught with some error?

Dr. Kaunitz: The endometrium in women with a progestin-releasing IUD in place tends to be very well suppressed. Although one might occasionally find, for instance, a polyp in that setting, I have not run into, and I don’t expect to encounter going forward, endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in women with current use of a progestin IUD. It’s possible but unlikely.

Dr. Levy: The progestin IUD will counterbalance a type-1 endometrial cancer—an endometrial cancer related to hyperstimulation by estrogen. It will not do anything, to my knowledge, to counterbalance a type 2. I think the art of medicine is, you do the best you can with the first episode of bleeding, and if she persists in her bleeding, we have to persevere and continue to evaluate her.

Dr. Goldstein: I agree 100%.

Dr. Pinkerton: We all agree with you. That’s a really good point.

Continue to: Case examinations...

Case examinations

CASE 1 Woman with intramural fibroids

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Goldstein, you have a 48-year-old Black woman who has heavy but regular menstrual bleeding with multiple fibroids (the largest is about 4 to 5 cm, they look intramural, with some distortion of the cavity but not a submucous myoma, and the endometrial depth is 9 cm). Would you insert an IUD, and would you recommend an endometrial biopsy first?

Dr. Goldstein: I am not a huge fan of blind endometrial sampling, and I do think that we use the “biopsy” somewhat inappropriately since sampling is not a directed biopsy. This became obvious in the landmark paper by Guido et al in 1995 and was adopted by ACOG only in 2012.²⁹ Cancers that occupy less than 50% of the endometrial surface area are often missed with such blind sampling. Thus I would not perform an endometrial biopsy first, but would rather rely on properly timed and performed transvaginal ultrasound to rule out any concurrent endometrial disease. I think a lot of patients who have HMB, not only because of their fibroids but also often just due to the surface area of their uterine cavity being increased—so essentially there is more blood volume when they bleed. However, you said that in this case the patient has regular menstrual bleeding, so I am assuming that she is still ovulatory. She may have some adenomyosis. She may have a large uterine cavity. I think she is an excellent candidate for an LNG-releasing IUD to reduce menstrual blood flow significantly. It will not necessarily give her amenorrhea, and it may give her some irregular bleeding. Then at some distant point, say in 5 or 6 months if she does have some irregular staining or bleeding, I would feel much better about the fact that nothing has developed as long as I knew that the endometrium was devoid of pathology when I started.

CASE 2 Woman with family history of breast cancer

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy, a 44-year-old woman has a family history of breast cancer in her mother at age 72, but she still needs contraceptionbecause of that unintended pregnancy risk in the 40s, and she wants something that is not going to increase her risk of breast cancer. What would you use, and how would you counsel her if you decided to use a progestin IUD?

Dr. Levy: The data are mixed,^30-33 but whatever the risk, it is miniscule, and I would bring up the CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria.¹¹ For a patient with a family history of breast cancer, for use of the progestin IUD, it is a 1—no contraindications. What I tend to tell my patients is, if you are worried about breast cancer, watch how much alcohol you are drinking and maintain regular exercise. There are so many preventive things that we can do to reduce risk of breast cancer when she needs contraception. If there is any increase in risk, it is so miniscule that I would very strongly recommend a progestin IUD for her.

Dr. Pinkerton: In addition, in recognizing the different densities of breast, dense breast density could lead to supplemental screening, which also could give her some reassurance that we are adequately screening for breast cancer.

CASE 3 Woman with IUD and VMS
 

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Kaunitz, you have a 52-year-old overweight female. She has been using a progestin IUD for 4 years, is amenorrheic, but now she is having moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms despite the IUD in place. You have talked to her about risks and benefits of HT, and she is interested in starting it. I know we talked about the studies, but I want to know what you are going to tell her. How do you counsel her about off-label use?

Dr. Kaunitz: The most important issue related to treating vasomotor symptoms in this patient is the route of systemic estrogen. Understandably, women’s biggest concern regarding the risks of systemic estrogen-progestin therapy is breast cancer. However, statistically, by far the biggest risk associated with oral estrogen-progestogen therapy, is elevated risk of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We have seen this, with a number of studies, and the WHI made it crystal clear with risks of oral conjugated equine estrogen at the dose of 0.625 mg daily. Oral estradiol 1 mg daily is also associated with a similar elevated risk of venous thrombosis. We also know that age and BMI are both independent risk factors for thrombosis. So, for a woman in her 50s who has a BMI > 30 mg/kg², I don’t want to further elevate her risk of thrombosis by giving her oral estrogen, whether it is estradiol or conjugated equine estrogen. This is a patient in whom I would be comfortable using transdermal (patch) estradiol, perhaps starting with a standard dose of 0.05 mg weekly or twice weekly patch, keeping in mind that 0.05 mg in the setting of transdermal estrogen refer to the daily or to the 24-hour release rate. The 1.0 mg of oral estradiol and 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogen refers to the mg quantity of estrogen in each tablet. This is a source of great confusion for clinicians.

If, during follow-up, the 0.05 mg estradiol patch is not sufficient to substantially reduce symptoms, we could go up, for instance, to a 0.075 mg estradiol patch. We know very clearly from a variety of observational studies, including a very large UK study,³⁴ that in contrast with oral estrogen, transdermal estradiol is safer from the perspective of thrombosis.

Insurance coverage for IUDs

Dr. Pinkerton: Dr. Levy: Can you discuss IUDs and the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to cover contraceptive services?

Dr. Levy: Unfortunately, we do not know whether this benefit will continue based on a very recent finding from a judge in Texas that ruled the preventive benefits of the ACA were illegal.³⁵ We don’t know what will happen going forward. What I will say is that, unfortunately, many insurance companies have not preserved the meaning of “cover all things,” so what we are finding is that, for example, they only have to cover one type in a class. The FDA defined 18 classes of contraceptives, and a hormonal IUD is one class, so they can decide that they are only going to cover one of the four IUDS. And then women don’t have access to the other three, some of which might be more appropriate for them than another.

The other thing very relevant to this conversation is that, if you use an ICD-10 code for menorrhagia, for HMB, it no longer lives within that ACA preventive care requirement of coverage for contraceptives, and now she is going to owe a big deductible or a copay. If you are practicing in an institution that does not allow the use of IUDs for contraception, like a Catholic institution where I used to practice, you will want to use that ICD-10 code for HMB. But if you want it offered with no out-of-pocket cost for the patient, you need to use the preventive medicine codes and the contraception code. These little nuances for us can make a huge difference for our patients.

Dr. Pinkerton: Thank you for that reminder. I want to thank our panelists, Dr. Levy, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Kaunitz, for providing us with such a great mix of evidence and expert opinion and also giving a benefit of their vast experience as award-winning gynecologists. Hopefully, today you have learned the benefits of the progestin IUD not only for contraception in reproductive years and perimenopause but also for treatment of HMB, and the potential benefit due to the more prolonged effectiveness of the IUDs for endometrial protection in postmenopause. This allows less progestin risk, essentially estrogen alone for postmenopausal HT. Unsolved questions remain about whether there is a risk of breast cancer with their use, but there is a clear benefit of protecting against pregnancy and endometrial cancer. ●

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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