MDedge ObGyn

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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