MDedge ObGyn

Sexually transmitted infection rates have not increased as dramatically in older women as they have in women in their teens and 20s, but rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in women over age 35 have seen a steady incline over the past decade, and syphilis rates have climbed steeply, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That makes the STI treatment guidelines released by the CDC in July even timelier for practitioners of menopause medicine, according to Michael S. Policar, MD, MPH, a professor emeritus of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Policar discussed what clinicians need to know about STIs in midlife women at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Even the nomenclature change in the guidelines from “sexually transmitted diseases” to “sexually transmitted infections” is important “because they want to acknowledge the fact that a lot of the sexually transmitted infections that we’re treating are asymptomatic, are colonizations, and are not yet diseases,” Dr. Policar said. “We’re trying to be much more expansive in thinking about finding these infections before they actually start causing morbidity in the form of a disease.”
 

Sexual history

The primary guidelines update for taking sexual history is the recommendation to ask patients about their intentions regarding pregnancy. The “5 Ps” of sexual history are now Partners, Practices, Protection from STIs, Past history of STIs, and Pregnancy intention.

“There should be a sixth P that has to do with pleasure questions,” Policar added. “We ask all the time for patients that we see in the context of perimenopausal and menopausal services, ‘Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship with your partner?’ Hopefully that will make it into the CDC guidelines as the sixth P at some point, but for now, that’s aspirational.”

In asking about partners, instead of asking patients whether they have sex with men, women, or both, clinicians should ask first if the patient is having sex of any kind – oral, vaginal, or anal – with anyone. From there, providers should ask how many sex partners the patient has had, the gender(s) of the partners, and whether they or their partners have other sex partners, using more gender-inclusive language.

When asking about practices, in addition to asking about the type of sexual contact patients have had, additional questions include whether the patient met their partners online or through apps, whether they or any of their partners use drugs, and whether the patient has exchanged sex for any needs, such as money, housing, or drugs. The additional questions can identify those at higher risk for STIs.

After reviewing the CDC’s list of risk factors for gonorrhea and chlamydia screening, Dr. Policar shared the screening list from the California Department of Public Health, which he finds more helpful:

• History of gonorrhea, chlamydia, or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in the past 2 years.
• More than 1 sexual partner in the past year.
• New sexual partner within 90 days.
• Reason to believe that a sex partner has had other partners in the past year.
• Exchanging sex for drugs or money within the past year.
• Other factors identified locally, including prevalence of infection in the community.

STI screening guidelines

For those with a positive gonorrhea/chlamydia (GC/CT) screen, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) vaginal swab is the preferred specimen source, and self-collection is fine for women of any age, Dr. Policar said. In addition, cis-women who received anal intercourse in the preceding year should consider undergoing a rectal GC/CT NAAT, and those who performed oral sex should consider a pharyngeal GC/CT NAAT, based on shared clinical decision-making. A rectal swab requires an insertion of 3-4 cm and a 360-degree twirl of the wrist, not the swab, to ensure you get a sample from the entire circumference. Pharyngeal samples require swabbing both tonsillar pillars while taking care for those who may gag.

For contact testing – asymptomatic people who have had a high-risk sexual exposure – providers should test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis but not for herpes, high-risk HPV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or bacterial vaginosis. “Maybe we’ll do a screen for trichomoniasis, and maybe we’ll offer herpes type 2 serology or antibody screening,” Dr. Policar said. Providers should also ask patients requesting contact testing if they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B. If not, “the conversation should be how can we get you vaccinated for hepatitis B,” Dr. Policar said.

HIV screening only needs to occur once between the ages of 15 and 65 for low-risk people and then once annually (or more often if necessary) for those who have a sex partner with HIV, use injectable drugs, engage in commercial sex work, have a new sex partner with unknown HIV status, received care at an STD or TB clinic, or were in a correctional facility or homeless shelter.

Those at increased risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men, men under age 29, and anyone living with HIV or who has a history of incarceration or a history of commercial sex work. In addition, African Americans have the greatest risk for syphilis of racial/ethnic groups, followed by Hispanics. Most adults only require hepatitis C screening with anti-hep C antibody testing once in their lifetime. Periodic hepatitis C screening should occur for people who inject drugs. If the screening is positive, providers should conduct an RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to determine whether a chronic infection is present.

Trichomoniasis screening should occur annually in women living with HIV or in correctional facilities. Others to consider screening include people with new or multiple sex partners, a history of STIs, inconsistent condom use, a history of sex work, and intravenous drug use. Dr. Policar also noted that several new assays, including NAAT, PCR, and a rapid test, are available for trichomoniasis.
 

STI treatment guidelines

For women with mucoprurulent cervicitis, the cause could be chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomonas, mycoplasma, or even progesterone from pregnancy or contraception, Dr. Policar said. The new preferred treatment is 100 mg of doxycycline. The alternative, albeit less preferred, treatment is 1 g azithromycin.

The preferred treatment for chlamydia is now 100 mg oral doxycycline twice daily, or doxycycline 200 mg delayed-release once daily, for 7 days. Alternative regimens include 1 g oral azithromycin in a single dose or 500 mg oral levofloxacin once daily for 7 days. The switch to recommending doxycycline over azithromycin is based on recent evidence showing that doxycycline has a slightly higher efficacy for urogenital chlamydia and a substantially higher efficacy for rectal chlamydia. In addition, an increasing proportion of gonorrheal infections have shown resistance to azithromycin, particularly beginning in 2014.

Preferred treatment of new, uncomplicated gonorrhea infections of the cervix, urethra, rectum, and pharynx is one 500-mg dose of ceftriaxone for those weighing under 150 kg and 1 g for those weighing 150 kg or more. If ceftriaxone is unavailable, the new alternative recommended treatment for gonorrhea is 800 mg cefixime. For pharyngeal gonorrhea only, the CDC recommends a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment.

For gonorrheal infections, the CDC also recommends treatment with doxycycline if chlamydia has not been excluded, but the agency no longer recommends dual therapy with azithromycin unless it’s used in place of doxycycline for those who are pregnant, have an allergy, or may not be compliant with a 7-day doxycycline regimen.

The preferred treatment for bacterial vaginosis has not changed. The new recommended regimen for trichomoniasis is 500 mg oral metronidazole for 7 days, with the alternative being a single 2-g dose of tinidazole. Male partners should receive 2 g oral metronidazole. The CDC also notes that patients taking metronidazole no longer need to abstain from alcohol during treatment.

”Another area where the guidelines changed is in their description of expedited partner therapy, which means that, when we find an index case who has gonorrhea or chlamydia, we always have a discussion with her about getting her partners treated,” Dr. Policar said. “The CDC was quite clear that the responsibility for discussing partner treatment rests with us as the diagnosing provider” since city and county health departments don’t have the time or resources for contact tracing these STIs.

The two main ways to treat partners are to have the patient bring their partner(s) to the appointment with them or to do patient-delivered partner therapy. Ideally, clinicians who dispense their own medications can give the patient enough drugs to give her partner(s) a complete dose as well. Otherwise, providers can prescribe extra doses in the index patients’ name or write prescriptions in the partner’s name.

“In every state of the union now, it is legal for you to to prescribe antibiotics for partners sight unseen, Dr. Policar said.

Margaret Sullivan, MD, an ob.gyn. from rural western North Carolina, noted during the Q&A that an obstacle to partner therapy at her practice has been cost, particularly since many of the men don’t have insurance.

“I have not heard before of prescribing the extra doses for partners under the patient’s name,” Dr. Sullivan said. “I’ve thought about doing it, but [was worried about] it potentially being fraudulent if that patient has Medicaid and we’re prescribing extra doses under her name, so how do you work around that?”

Dr. Policar acknowledged that barrier and recommended that patients use the website/app Goodrx.com to find discounts for out-of-pocket generic medications. He also noted the occasional obstacle of pharmacists balking at filling a double or triple dose.

“What we’ve been suggesting in that circumstance is to literally copy that part of the CDC guidelines, which explains expedited partner therapy or patient-delivered partner therapy and send that off to the pharmacist so they can see that it’s a national recommendation of the CDC,” Dr. Policar said.

Claudia Rodriguez, MD, an ob.gyn. who works at Sherman Hospital in Elgin, Ill., asked about the CDC recommendations for HPV vaccination in older women. Although the CDC permits women over age 26 to receive the HPV vaccine, the agency does not “make a solid recommendation to have this done, which oftentimes makes a big difference in whether or not health insurance will actually pay for vaccination in that circumstance,” Dr. Policar said.

Patients are welcome to request the vaccine after shared decision-making, but “we should never present this as something which is routine,” he said. For women in their 50s, for example, “there’s virtually no data about any additional degree of protection that you would get” from HPV vaccination, Dr. Policar said in response to a similar question from Tara Allmen, MD, an ob.gyn. in New York City. “If you ask me for my personal clinical opinion about it, I would say it’s not going to be worth it,” he said.

Dr Policar had no disclosures. Disclosures were unavailable for attendees who spoke.

Sexually transmitted infection rates have not increased as dramatically in older women as they have in women in their teens and 20s, but rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in women over age 35 have seen a steady incline over the past decade, and syphilis rates have climbed steeply, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That makes the STI treatment guidelines released by the CDC in July even timelier for practitioners of menopause medicine, according to Michael S. Policar, MD, MPH, a professor emeritus of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Policar discussed what clinicians need to know about STIs in midlife women at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Even the nomenclature change in the guidelines from “sexually transmitted diseases” to “sexually transmitted infections” is important “because they want to acknowledge the fact that a lot of the sexually transmitted infections that we’re treating are asymptomatic, are colonizations, and are not yet diseases,” Dr. Policar said. “We’re trying to be much more expansive in thinking about finding these infections before they actually start causing morbidity in the form of a disease.”
 

Sexual history

The primary guidelines update for taking sexual history is the recommendation to ask patients about their intentions regarding pregnancy. The “5 Ps” of sexual history are now Partners, Practices, Protection from STIs, Past history of STIs, and Pregnancy intention.

“There should be a sixth P that has to do with pleasure questions,” Policar added. “We ask all the time for patients that we see in the context of perimenopausal and menopausal services, ‘Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship with your partner?’ Hopefully that will make it into the CDC guidelines as the sixth P at some point, but for now, that’s aspirational.”

In asking about partners, instead of asking patients whether they have sex with men, women, or both, clinicians should ask first if the patient is having sex of any kind – oral, vaginal, or anal – with anyone. From there, providers should ask how many sex partners the patient has had, the gender(s) of the partners, and whether they or their partners have other sex partners, using more gender-inclusive language.

When asking about practices, in addition to asking about the type of sexual contact patients have had, additional questions include whether the patient met their partners online or through apps, whether they or any of their partners use drugs, and whether the patient has exchanged sex for any needs, such as money, housing, or drugs. The additional questions can identify those at higher risk for STIs.

After reviewing the CDC’s list of risk factors for gonorrhea and chlamydia screening, Dr. Policar shared the screening list from the California Department of Public Health, which he finds more helpful:

• History of gonorrhea, chlamydia, or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in the past 2 years.
• More than 1 sexual partner in the past year.
• New sexual partner within 90 days.
• Reason to believe that a sex partner has had other partners in the past year.
• Exchanging sex for drugs or money within the past year.
• Other factors identified locally, including prevalence of infection in the community.

STI screening guidelines

For those with a positive gonorrhea/chlamydia (GC/CT) screen, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) vaginal swab is the preferred specimen source, and self-collection is fine for women of any age, Dr. Policar said. In addition, cis-women who received anal intercourse in the preceding year should consider undergoing a rectal GC/CT NAAT, and those who performed oral sex should consider a pharyngeal GC/CT NAAT, based on shared clinical decision-making. A rectal swab requires an insertion of 3-4 cm and a 360-degree twirl of the wrist, not the swab, to ensure you get a sample from the entire circumference. Pharyngeal samples require swabbing both tonsillar pillars while taking care for those who may gag.

For contact testing – asymptomatic people who have had a high-risk sexual exposure – providers should test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis but not for herpes, high-risk HPV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or bacterial vaginosis. “Maybe we’ll do a screen for trichomoniasis, and maybe we’ll offer herpes type 2 serology or antibody screening,” Dr. Policar said. Providers should also ask patients requesting contact testing if they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B. If not, “the conversation should be how can we get you vaccinated for hepatitis B,” Dr. Policar said.

HIV screening only needs to occur once between the ages of 15 and 65 for low-risk people and then once annually (or more often if necessary) for those who have a sex partner with HIV, use injectable drugs, engage in commercial sex work, have a new sex partner with unknown HIV status, received care at an STD or TB clinic, or were in a correctional facility or homeless shelter.

Those at increased risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men, men under age 29, and anyone living with HIV or who has a history of incarceration or a history of commercial sex work. In addition, African Americans have the greatest risk for syphilis of racial/ethnic groups, followed by Hispanics. Most adults only require hepatitis C screening with anti-hep C antibody testing once in their lifetime. Periodic hepatitis C screening should occur for people who inject drugs. If the screening is positive, providers should conduct an RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to determine whether a chronic infection is present.

Trichomoniasis screening should occur annually in women living with HIV or in correctional facilities. Others to consider screening include people with new or multiple sex partners, a history of STIs, inconsistent condom use, a history of sex work, and intravenous drug use. Dr. Policar also noted that several new assays, including NAAT, PCR, and a rapid test, are available for trichomoniasis.
 

STI treatment guidelines

For women with mucoprurulent cervicitis, the cause could be chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomonas, mycoplasma, or even progesterone from pregnancy or contraception, Dr. Policar said. The new preferred treatment is 100 mg of doxycycline. The alternative, albeit less preferred, treatment is 1 g azithromycin.

The preferred treatment for chlamydia is now 100 mg oral doxycycline twice daily, or doxycycline 200 mg delayed-release once daily, for 7 days. Alternative regimens include 1 g oral azithromycin in a single dose or 500 mg oral levofloxacin once daily for 7 days. The switch to recommending doxycycline over azithromycin is based on recent evidence showing that doxycycline has a slightly higher efficacy for urogenital chlamydia and a substantially higher efficacy for rectal chlamydia. In addition, an increasing proportion of gonorrheal infections have shown resistance to azithromycin, particularly beginning in 2014.

Preferred treatment of new, uncomplicated gonorrhea infections of the cervix, urethra, rectum, and pharynx is one 500-mg dose of ceftriaxone for those weighing under 150 kg and 1 g for those weighing 150 kg or more. If ceftriaxone is unavailable, the new alternative recommended treatment for gonorrhea is 800 mg cefixime. For pharyngeal gonorrhea only, the CDC recommends a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment.

For gonorrheal infections, the CDC also recommends treatment with doxycycline if chlamydia has not been excluded, but the agency no longer recommends dual therapy with azithromycin unless it’s used in place of doxycycline for those who are pregnant, have an allergy, or may not be compliant with a 7-day doxycycline regimen.

The preferred treatment for bacterial vaginosis has not changed. The new recommended regimen for trichomoniasis is 500 mg oral metronidazole for 7 days, with the alternative being a single 2-g dose of tinidazole. Male partners should receive 2 g oral metronidazole. The CDC also notes that patients taking metronidazole no longer need to abstain from alcohol during treatment.

”Another area where the guidelines changed is in their description of expedited partner therapy, which means that, when we find an index case who has gonorrhea or chlamydia, we always have a discussion with her about getting her partners treated,” Dr. Policar said. “The CDC was quite clear that the responsibility for discussing partner treatment rests with us as the diagnosing provider” since city and county health departments don’t have the time or resources for contact tracing these STIs.

The two main ways to treat partners are to have the patient bring their partner(s) to the appointment with them or to do patient-delivered partner therapy. Ideally, clinicians who dispense their own medications can give the patient enough drugs to give her partner(s) a complete dose as well. Otherwise, providers can prescribe extra doses in the index patients’ name or write prescriptions in the partner’s name.

“In every state of the union now, it is legal for you to to prescribe antibiotics for partners sight unseen, Dr. Policar said.

Margaret Sullivan, MD, an ob.gyn. from rural western North Carolina, noted during the Q&A that an obstacle to partner therapy at her practice has been cost, particularly since many of the men don’t have insurance.

“I have not heard before of prescribing the extra doses for partners under the patient’s name,” Dr. Sullivan said. “I’ve thought about doing it, but [was worried about] it potentially being fraudulent if that patient has Medicaid and we’re prescribing extra doses under her name, so how do you work around that?”

Dr. Policar acknowledged that barrier and recommended that patients use the website/app Goodrx.com to find discounts for out-of-pocket generic medications. He also noted the occasional obstacle of pharmacists balking at filling a double or triple dose.

“What we’ve been suggesting in that circumstance is to literally copy that part of the CDC guidelines, which explains expedited partner therapy or patient-delivered partner therapy and send that off to the pharmacist so they can see that it’s a national recommendation of the CDC,” Dr. Policar said.

Claudia Rodriguez, MD, an ob.gyn. who works at Sherman Hospital in Elgin, Ill., asked about the CDC recommendations for HPV vaccination in older women. Although the CDC permits women over age 26 to receive the HPV vaccine, the agency does not “make a solid recommendation to have this done, which oftentimes makes a big difference in whether or not health insurance will actually pay for vaccination in that circumstance,” Dr. Policar said.

Patients are welcome to request the vaccine after shared decision-making, but “we should never present this as something which is routine,” he said. For women in their 50s, for example, “there’s virtually no data about any additional degree of protection that you would get” from HPV vaccination, Dr. Policar said in response to a similar question from Tara Allmen, MD, an ob.gyn. in New York City. “If you ask me for my personal clinical opinion about it, I would say it’s not going to be worth it,” he said.

Dr Policar had no disclosures. Disclosures were unavailable for attendees who spoke.

Sexually transmitted infection rates have not increased as dramatically in older women as they have in women in their teens and 20s, but rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in women over age 35 have seen a steady incline over the past decade, and syphilis rates have climbed steeply, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That makes the STI treatment guidelines released by the CDC in July even timelier for practitioners of menopause medicine, according to Michael S. Policar, MD, MPH, a professor emeritus of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Policar discussed what clinicians need to know about STIs in midlife women at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Even the nomenclature change in the guidelines from “sexually transmitted diseases” to “sexually transmitted infections” is important “because they want to acknowledge the fact that a lot of the sexually transmitted infections that we’re treating are asymptomatic, are colonizations, and are not yet diseases,” Dr. Policar said. “We’re trying to be much more expansive in thinking about finding these infections before they actually start causing morbidity in the form of a disease.”
 

Sexual history

The primary guidelines update for taking sexual history is the recommendation to ask patients about their intentions regarding pregnancy. The “5 Ps” of sexual history are now Partners, Practices, Protection from STIs, Past history of STIs, and Pregnancy intention.

“There should be a sixth P that has to do with pleasure questions,” Policar added. “We ask all the time for patients that we see in the context of perimenopausal and menopausal services, ‘Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship with your partner?’ Hopefully that will make it into the CDC guidelines as the sixth P at some point, but for now, that’s aspirational.”

In asking about partners, instead of asking patients whether they have sex with men, women, or both, clinicians should ask first if the patient is having sex of any kind – oral, vaginal, or anal – with anyone. From there, providers should ask how many sex partners the patient has had, the gender(s) of the partners, and whether they or their partners have other sex partners, using more gender-inclusive language.

When asking about practices, in addition to asking about the type of sexual contact patients have had, additional questions include whether the patient met their partners online or through apps, whether they or any of their partners use drugs, and whether the patient has exchanged sex for any needs, such as money, housing, or drugs. The additional questions can identify those at higher risk for STIs.

After reviewing the CDC’s list of risk factors for gonorrhea and chlamydia screening, Dr. Policar shared the screening list from the California Department of Public Health, which he finds more helpful:

• History of gonorrhea, chlamydia, or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in the past 2 years.
• More than 1 sexual partner in the past year.
• New sexual partner within 90 days.
• Reason to believe that a sex partner has had other partners in the past year.
• Exchanging sex for drugs or money within the past year.
• Other factors identified locally, including prevalence of infection in the community.

STI screening guidelines

For those with a positive gonorrhea/chlamydia (GC/CT) screen, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) vaginal swab is the preferred specimen source, and self-collection is fine for women of any age, Dr. Policar said. In addition, cis-women who received anal intercourse in the preceding year should consider undergoing a rectal GC/CT NAAT, and those who performed oral sex should consider a pharyngeal GC/CT NAAT, based on shared clinical decision-making. A rectal swab requires an insertion of 3-4 cm and a 360-degree twirl of the wrist, not the swab, to ensure you get a sample from the entire circumference. Pharyngeal samples require swabbing both tonsillar pillars while taking care for those who may gag.

For contact testing – asymptomatic people who have had a high-risk sexual exposure – providers should test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis but not for herpes, high-risk HPV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or bacterial vaginosis. “Maybe we’ll do a screen for trichomoniasis, and maybe we’ll offer herpes type 2 serology or antibody screening,” Dr. Policar said. Providers should also ask patients requesting contact testing if they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B. If not, “the conversation should be how can we get you vaccinated for hepatitis B,” Dr. Policar said.

HIV screening only needs to occur once between the ages of 15 and 65 for low-risk people and then once annually (or more often if necessary) for those who have a sex partner with HIV, use injectable drugs, engage in commercial sex work, have a new sex partner with unknown HIV status, received care at an STD or TB clinic, or were in a correctional facility or homeless shelter.

Those at increased risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men, men under age 29, and anyone living with HIV or who has a history of incarceration or a history of commercial sex work. In addition, African Americans have the greatest risk for syphilis of racial/ethnic groups, followed by Hispanics. Most adults only require hepatitis C screening with anti-hep C antibody testing once in their lifetime. Periodic hepatitis C screening should occur for people who inject drugs. If the screening is positive, providers should conduct an RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to determine whether a chronic infection is present.

Trichomoniasis screening should occur annually in women living with HIV or in correctional facilities. Others to consider screening include people with new or multiple sex partners, a history of STIs, inconsistent condom use, a history of sex work, and intravenous drug use. Dr. Policar also noted that several new assays, including NAAT, PCR, and a rapid test, are available for trichomoniasis.
 

STI treatment guidelines

For women with mucoprurulent cervicitis, the cause could be chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomonas, mycoplasma, or even progesterone from pregnancy or contraception, Dr. Policar said. The new preferred treatment is 100 mg of doxycycline. The alternative, albeit less preferred, treatment is 1 g azithromycin.

The preferred treatment for chlamydia is now 100 mg oral doxycycline twice daily, or doxycycline 200 mg delayed-release once daily, for 7 days. Alternative regimens include 1 g oral azithromycin in a single dose or 500 mg oral levofloxacin once daily for 7 days. The switch to recommending doxycycline over azithromycin is based on recent evidence showing that doxycycline has a slightly higher efficacy for urogenital chlamydia and a substantially higher efficacy for rectal chlamydia. In addition, an increasing proportion of gonorrheal infections have shown resistance to azithromycin, particularly beginning in 2014.

Preferred treatment of new, uncomplicated gonorrhea infections of the cervix, urethra, rectum, and pharynx is one 500-mg dose of ceftriaxone for those weighing under 150 kg and 1 g for those weighing 150 kg or more. If ceftriaxone is unavailable, the new alternative recommended treatment for gonorrhea is 800 mg cefixime. For pharyngeal gonorrhea only, the CDC recommends a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment.

For gonorrheal infections, the CDC also recommends treatment with doxycycline if chlamydia has not been excluded, but the agency no longer recommends dual therapy with azithromycin unless it’s used in place of doxycycline for those who are pregnant, have an allergy, or may not be compliant with a 7-day doxycycline regimen.

The preferred treatment for bacterial vaginosis has not changed. The new recommended regimen for trichomoniasis is 500 mg oral metronidazole for 7 days, with the alternative being a single 2-g dose of tinidazole. Male partners should receive 2 g oral metronidazole. The CDC also notes that patients taking metronidazole no longer need to abstain from alcohol during treatment.

”Another area where the guidelines changed is in their description of expedited partner therapy, which means that, when we find an index case who has gonorrhea or chlamydia, we always have a discussion with her about getting her partners treated,” Dr. Policar said. “The CDC was quite clear that the responsibility for discussing partner treatment rests with us as the diagnosing provider” since city and county health departments don’t have the time or resources for contact tracing these STIs.

The two main ways to treat partners are to have the patient bring their partner(s) to the appointment with them or to do patient-delivered partner therapy. Ideally, clinicians who dispense their own medications can give the patient enough drugs to give her partner(s) a complete dose as well. Otherwise, providers can prescribe extra doses in the index patients’ name or write prescriptions in the partner’s name.

“In every state of the union now, it is legal for you to to prescribe antibiotics for partners sight unseen, Dr. Policar said.

Margaret Sullivan, MD, an ob.gyn. from rural western North Carolina, noted during the Q&A that an obstacle to partner therapy at her practice has been cost, particularly since many of the men don’t have insurance.

“I have not heard before of prescribing the extra doses for partners under the patient’s name,” Dr. Sullivan said. “I’ve thought about doing it, but [was worried about] it potentially being fraudulent if that patient has Medicaid and we’re prescribing extra doses under her name, so how do you work around that?”

Dr. Policar acknowledged that barrier and recommended that patients use the website/app Goodrx.com to find discounts for out-of-pocket generic medications. He also noted the occasional obstacle of pharmacists balking at filling a double or triple dose.

“What we’ve been suggesting in that circumstance is to literally copy that part of the CDC guidelines, which explains expedited partner therapy or patient-delivered partner therapy and send that off to the pharmacist so they can see that it’s a national recommendation of the CDC,” Dr. Policar said.

Claudia Rodriguez, MD, an ob.gyn. who works at Sherman Hospital in Elgin, Ill., asked about the CDC recommendations for HPV vaccination in older women. Although the CDC permits women over age 26 to receive the HPV vaccine, the agency does not “make a solid recommendation to have this done, which oftentimes makes a big difference in whether or not health insurance will actually pay for vaccination in that circumstance,” Dr. Policar said.

Patients are welcome to request the vaccine after shared decision-making, but “we should never present this as something which is routine,” he said. For women in their 50s, for example, “there’s virtually no data about any additional degree of protection that you would get” from HPV vaccination, Dr. Policar said in response to a similar question from Tara Allmen, MD, an ob.gyn. in New York City. “If you ask me for my personal clinical opinion about it, I would say it’s not going to be worth it,” he said.

Dr Policar had no disclosures. Disclosures were unavailable for attendees who spoke.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New consensus guidelines from a multispecialty working group of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) clear up inconsistencies in the use of magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) and provide universal recommendations on MRD technique, interpretation, reporting, and other factors.

“The consensus language used to describe pelvic floor disorders is critical, so as to allow the various experts who treat these patients [to] communicate and collaborate effectively with each other,” coauthor Liliana Bordeianou, MD, MPH, an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chair of the Massachusetts General Hospital Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Centers, told this news organization.

“These diseases do not choose an arbitrary side in the pelvis,” she noted. “Instead, these diseases affect the entire pelvis and require a multidisciplinary and collaborative solution.”

MRD is a key component in that solution, providing dynamic evaluation of pelvic floor function and visualization of the complex interaction in pelvic compartments among patients with defecatory pelvic floor disorders, such as vaginal or uterine prolapse, constipation, incontinence, or other pelvic floor dysfunctions.

However, a key shortcoming has been a lack of consistency in nomenclature and the reporting of MRD findings among institutions and subspecialties.

Clinicians may wind up using different definitions for the same condition and different thresholds for grading severity, resulting in inconsistent communication not only between clinicians across institutions but even within the same institution, the report notes.

To address the situation, radiologists with the Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Disease Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) published recommendations on MRD protocol and technique in April.

However, even with that guidance, there has been significant variability in the interpretation and utilization of MRD findings among specialties outside of radiology.

The new report was therefore developed to include input from the broad variety of specialists involved in the treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders, including colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners.

“The goal of this effort was to create a universal set of recommendations and language for MRD technique, interpretation, and reporting that can be utilized and carry the same significance across disciplines,” write the authors of the report, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

One key area addressed in the report is a recommendation that MRD can be performed in either the upright or supine position, which has been a topic of inconsistency, said Brooke Gurland, MD, medical director of the Pelvic Health Center at Stanford University, California, a co-author on the consensus statement.

“Supine versus upright position was a source of debate, but ultimately there was a consensus that supine position was acceptable,” she told said in an interview.

Regarding positioning, the recommendations conclude that “given the variable results from different studies, consortium members agreed that it is acceptable to perform MRD in the supine position when upright MRD is not available.”

“Importantly, consortium experts stressed that it is very important that this imaging be performed after proper patient education on the purpose of the examination,” they note.

Other recommendations delve into contrast medium considerations, such as the recommendation that MRD does not require the routine use of vaginal contrast medium for adequate imaging of pathology.

And guidance on the technique and grading of relevant pathology include a recommendation to use the pubococcygeal line (PCL) as a point of reference to quantify the prolapse of organs in all compartments of the pelvic floor.

“There is an increasing appreciation that most patients with pelvic organ prolapse experience dual or even triple compartment pathology, making it important to describe the observations in all three compartments to ensure the mobilization of the appropriate team of experts to treat the patient,” the authors note.

The consensus report features an interpretative template providing synopses of the recommendations, which can be adjusted and modified according to additional radiologic information, as well as individualized patient information or clinician preferences.

However, “the suggested verbiage and steps should be advocated as the minimum requirements when performing and interpreting MRD in patients with evacuation disorders of the pelvic floor,” the authors note.

Dr. Gurland added that, in addition to providing benefits in the present utilization of MRD, the clearer guidelines should help advance its use to improve patient care in the future.

“Standardizing imaging techniques, reporting, and language is critical to improving our understanding and then developing therapies for pelvic floor disorders,” she said.

“In the future, correlating MRD with surgical outcomes and identifying modifiable risk factors will improve patient care.”

In addition to being published in the AJR, the report was published concurrently in the journals Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, International Urogynecology Journal, and Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery.

The authors of the guidelines have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New consensus guidelines from a multispecialty working group of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) clear up inconsistencies in the use of magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) and provide universal recommendations on MRD technique, interpretation, reporting, and other factors.

“The consensus language used to describe pelvic floor disorders is critical, so as to allow the various experts who treat these patients [to] communicate and collaborate effectively with each other,” coauthor Liliana Bordeianou, MD, MPH, an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chair of the Massachusetts General Hospital Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Centers, told this news organization.

“These diseases do not choose an arbitrary side in the pelvis,” she noted. “Instead, these diseases affect the entire pelvis and require a multidisciplinary and collaborative solution.”

MRD is a key component in that solution, providing dynamic evaluation of pelvic floor function and visualization of the complex interaction in pelvic compartments among patients with defecatory pelvic floor disorders, such as vaginal or uterine prolapse, constipation, incontinence, or other pelvic floor dysfunctions.

However, a key shortcoming has been a lack of consistency in nomenclature and the reporting of MRD findings among institutions and subspecialties.

Clinicians may wind up using different definitions for the same condition and different thresholds for grading severity, resulting in inconsistent communication not only between clinicians across institutions but even within the same institution, the report notes.

To address the situation, radiologists with the Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Disease Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) published recommendations on MRD protocol and technique in April.

However, even with that guidance, there has been significant variability in the interpretation and utilization of MRD findings among specialties outside of radiology.

The new report was therefore developed to include input from the broad variety of specialists involved in the treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders, including colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners.

“The goal of this effort was to create a universal set of recommendations and language for MRD technique, interpretation, and reporting that can be utilized and carry the same significance across disciplines,” write the authors of the report, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

One key area addressed in the report is a recommendation that MRD can be performed in either the upright or supine position, which has been a topic of inconsistency, said Brooke Gurland, MD, medical director of the Pelvic Health Center at Stanford University, California, a co-author on the consensus statement.

“Supine versus upright position was a source of debate, but ultimately there was a consensus that supine position was acceptable,” she told said in an interview.

Regarding positioning, the recommendations conclude that “given the variable results from different studies, consortium members agreed that it is acceptable to perform MRD in the supine position when upright MRD is not available.”

“Importantly, consortium experts stressed that it is very important that this imaging be performed after proper patient education on the purpose of the examination,” they note.

Other recommendations delve into contrast medium considerations, such as the recommendation that MRD does not require the routine use of vaginal contrast medium for adequate imaging of pathology.

And guidance on the technique and grading of relevant pathology include a recommendation to use the pubococcygeal line (PCL) as a point of reference to quantify the prolapse of organs in all compartments of the pelvic floor.

“There is an increasing appreciation that most patients with pelvic organ prolapse experience dual or even triple compartment pathology, making it important to describe the observations in all three compartments to ensure the mobilization of the appropriate team of experts to treat the patient,” the authors note.

The consensus report features an interpretative template providing synopses of the recommendations, which can be adjusted and modified according to additional radiologic information, as well as individualized patient information or clinician preferences.

However, “the suggested verbiage and steps should be advocated as the minimum requirements when performing and interpreting MRD in patients with evacuation disorders of the pelvic floor,” the authors note.

Dr. Gurland added that, in addition to providing benefits in the present utilization of MRD, the clearer guidelines should help advance its use to improve patient care in the future.

“Standardizing imaging techniques, reporting, and language is critical to improving our understanding and then developing therapies for pelvic floor disorders,” she said.

“In the future, correlating MRD with surgical outcomes and identifying modifiable risk factors will improve patient care.”

In addition to being published in the AJR, the report was published concurrently in the journals Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, International Urogynecology Journal, and Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery.

The authors of the guidelines have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New consensus guidelines from a multispecialty working group of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) clear up inconsistencies in the use of magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) and provide universal recommendations on MRD technique, interpretation, reporting, and other factors.

“The consensus language used to describe pelvic floor disorders is critical, so as to allow the various experts who treat these patients [to] communicate and collaborate effectively with each other,” coauthor Liliana Bordeianou, MD, MPH, an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chair of the Massachusetts General Hospital Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Centers, told this news organization.

“These diseases do not choose an arbitrary side in the pelvis,” she noted. “Instead, these diseases affect the entire pelvis and require a multidisciplinary and collaborative solution.”

MRD is a key component in that solution, providing dynamic evaluation of pelvic floor function and visualization of the complex interaction in pelvic compartments among patients with defecatory pelvic floor disorders, such as vaginal or uterine prolapse, constipation, incontinence, or other pelvic floor dysfunctions.

However, a key shortcoming has been a lack of consistency in nomenclature and the reporting of MRD findings among institutions and subspecialties.

Clinicians may wind up using different definitions for the same condition and different thresholds for grading severity, resulting in inconsistent communication not only between clinicians across institutions but even within the same institution, the report notes.

To address the situation, radiologists with the Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Disease Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) published recommendations on MRD protocol and technique in April.

However, even with that guidance, there has been significant variability in the interpretation and utilization of MRD findings among specialties outside of radiology.

The new report was therefore developed to include input from the broad variety of specialists involved in the treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders, including colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners.

“The goal of this effort was to create a universal set of recommendations and language for MRD technique, interpretation, and reporting that can be utilized and carry the same significance across disciplines,” write the authors of the report, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

One key area addressed in the report is a recommendation that MRD can be performed in either the upright or supine position, which has been a topic of inconsistency, said Brooke Gurland, MD, medical director of the Pelvic Health Center at Stanford University, California, a co-author on the consensus statement.

“Supine versus upright position was a source of debate, but ultimately there was a consensus that supine position was acceptable,” she told said in an interview.

Regarding positioning, the recommendations conclude that “given the variable results from different studies, consortium members agreed that it is acceptable to perform MRD in the supine position when upright MRD is not available.”

“Importantly, consortium experts stressed that it is very important that this imaging be performed after proper patient education on the purpose of the examination,” they note.

Other recommendations delve into contrast medium considerations, such as the recommendation that MRD does not require the routine use of vaginal contrast medium for adequate imaging of pathology.

And guidance on the technique and grading of relevant pathology include a recommendation to use the pubococcygeal line (PCL) as a point of reference to quantify the prolapse of organs in all compartments of the pelvic floor.

“There is an increasing appreciation that most patients with pelvic organ prolapse experience dual or even triple compartment pathology, making it important to describe the observations in all three compartments to ensure the mobilization of the appropriate team of experts to treat the patient,” the authors note.

The consensus report features an interpretative template providing synopses of the recommendations, which can be adjusted and modified according to additional radiologic information, as well as individualized patient information or clinician preferences.

However, “the suggested verbiage and steps should be advocated as the minimum requirements when performing and interpreting MRD in patients with evacuation disorders of the pelvic floor,” the authors note.

Dr. Gurland added that, in addition to providing benefits in the present utilization of MRD, the clearer guidelines should help advance its use to improve patient care in the future.

“Standardizing imaging techniques, reporting, and language is critical to improving our understanding and then developing therapies for pelvic floor disorders,” she said.

“In the future, correlating MRD with surgical outcomes and identifying modifiable risk factors will improve patient care.”

In addition to being published in the AJR, the report was published concurrently in the journals Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, International Urogynecology Journal, and Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery.

The authors of the guidelines have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

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

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

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

Slips and falls are a major source of injuries, especially among the elderly, but they’re also a way for schemers to rake in big bucks, as a story in the New York Daily News, among other news outlets, indicates.

In the latest iteration of this age-old practice, a team of attorneys and doctors allegedly recruited more than 400 New York City inhabitants, many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs, over the course of 5 years to participate in their scam.

These people, who were often desperate for money, were coached to claim they’d tripped and fallen over one of the many obstacles pedestrians encounter in the city — sidewalk cracks, potholes, open or protruding cellar doors, and the like. The participant would be cajoled into signing his or her name to a fraudulent suit. Over the years, the scam netted the bosses more than $31 million from city businesses and their insurance companies.

In some cases, to add authenticity to the swindle, the scammers convinced the so-called victims to undergo an operation, promising them up to $1,500 to go under the knife.

Accused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of masterminding the slip-and-fall operation were two attorneys, George Constantine and Marc Elefant, and a pair of doctors, Andrew Dowd, MD, an orthopedic surgeon, and Sady Ribeiro, MD, a pain management specialist and surgeon.

According to the charges, Mr. Constantine and Mr. Elefant filed lawsuits — either together or separately, though the report isn’t clear — on behalf of hundreds of people who took part in the scheme. Dr. Dowd and Dr. Ribeiro also profited handsomely, according to authorities. Dr. Dowd, they say, earned roughly $9,500 per surgery. Dr. Ribeiro is accused of treating nearly 200 participants during the con and of often paying kickbacks to them to drum up additional referrals.

If convicted on all charges, including mail and wire fraud, each of the defendants could face up to 20 years in prison.

This isn’t the first time such a scheme has been hatched and carried out in New York City.

In May 2020, three men were sentenced to prison for their involvement in a similar slip-and-fall operation that took place between 2013 and 2018. (Their sentencing followed an earlier conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.)

Like the most recent scheme, the one that began in 2013 preyed on the hopeless. “The whole essence of this conspiracy is to find the down-and-out, find the desperate, find the homeless,” the sentencing judge said at the time. “No person who has a job and education and can support his or her family even minimally is going to say, ‘Oh, I’ll undergo unnecessary back surgery for a thousand dollars.’ These people were vulnerable and desperate.”

Sales reps in the OR — helpful or harmful?

Although medical device makers insist that the practice of placing sales reps in operating rooms (ORs) has proven beneficial to surgeons over the years, others claim it has contributed to unwanted outcomes, according to a report published in Kaiser Health News.

In May 2018, for instance, Cristina Martinez underwent what was supposed to be a routine spinal implant procedure. In the course of the operation, her Houston-based spine surgeon discovered that the implant he was about to insert in her back was larger than the one he had intended to use. Under different circumstances, the device maker’s sales representative who was present in the OR that day might have been able to supply the smaller implant. But the rep didn’t have one available, so the surgeon proceeded with the operation using the larger plastic disk.

Four days later, in another procedure, the surgeon removed that disk and replaced it with one that was the correct size. Ms. Martinez has claimed that she awakened from the second procedure in pain, the result of nerve damage that she says led to loss of feeling in her left leg.

In a suit against the doctor, the device maker, and its distributor and sales reps, Ms. Martinez alleges that her injuries were the direct result of their negligence in not having the proper disk available during the initial operation.

The defendants have each denied any wrongdoing.

The accused spine surgeon submitted to the court his operating notes, which reportedly say that he had depended on a company distributor and its sales reps to provide “all lengths available” of the implant. In another filing, he contends that the “small area of leg numbness experienced by Ms. Martinez was a known complication of the first surgery...and was not the result of any alleged negligence.”

The device maker also denies any wrongdoing. In its filings, it claims that sales reps initially ordered a sterile kit that included implants ranging from 50 mm to 55 mm in length. The kit, says the manufacturer, was duly shipped to Houston, but the surgeon replaced the original implant with a 40-mm version during Ms. Martinez’ reoperation.

A trial is scheduled for this November.

But was the Houston incident typical?

Device makers argue that having sales reps in the OR makes sense: Well trained, they offer surgeons vital technical guidance in the use of products that are often complex.

Kaiser Health News says its investigation found otherwise. This practice and others “have been blamed for contributing to serious patient harm in thousands of medical malpractice, product liability, and whistleblower lawsuits filed over the past decade,” it reports.

The list of allegations is long: Some patients say they were injured because sales reps sold or delivered either the wrong-size implant or a defective one. Others say that in their communications with doctors, device makers were shown to have been less than truthful about the safety and durability of their products.

Currently, more than 28,000 suits have been consolidated into six multi-district federal cases. Most involve patients who claim injury after receiving hip implants. Some of the procedures required painful reoperations.

Other court actions cite device makers for other misdeeds, including keeping federal regulators in the dark about potentially dangerous product defects and plying surgeons with millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks.

Device makers have denied these and other allegations. Many of their cases have been settled confidentially.

This high-risk specialty found a way to lower its claim rates

Ob.gyns. who undergo training that simulates team interactions during a high-acuity clinical case face fewer malpractice claims afterward, according to a study published in August in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Researchers examined the claim rates of 292 ob.gyns. who had undergone one or more such training simulations from 2002 to 2019. To gauge the effect of simulation training on the rate of medical malpractice claims, the researchers compared pretraining rates with posttraining rates. Because participants were insured by the same carrier, the team had access to the relevant claims data as well as the doctors’ durations of coverage.

The investigators assessed claim rates for the period 2002 to 2019 (the full study period), as well as rates for 2-year and 1-year participation.

Researchers found a nonsignificant drop in claim rates for doctors in the 1-year group. The drop was greater for those in the 2-year group; it decreased from 9.2 to 5.4 claims per 100 physician coverage years. (A coverage year is defined as 12 months of indemnity protection.)

For doctors who took part for the entire study period — and were therefore more likely to be among the nearly 20% of doctors who attended three or more training sessions — postsimulation claim rates dropped significantly, from 11.2 to 5.7 per 100 physician coverage years. (Attendance in more than one simulation session correlated with a greater reduction in claim rates.)

“We observed a significant reduction in malpractice claim rates after simulation training,” the researchers concluded. “Wider use of simulation training within obstetrics and gynecology should be considered.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
 

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

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), took a prominent stand in the battle over abortion legislation by filing an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, according to a statement from ACOG issued on Sept. 21.

The case, filed by Thomas E. Dobbs, MD, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, and others, appeals the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to throw out Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.*

ACOG’s amicus brief, which was signed by 24 additional medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, “represents an unprecedented level of support from a diverse group of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals, which demonstrates the concrete medical consensus of opposition to abortion restriction legislation such as the law at the heart of Dobbs v. Jackson,” according to the ACOG statement.

The brief explains how the ban goes against not only the ability of health professionals to provide safe and essential care, but also goes against scientific evidence and medical ethics. “By preventing clinicians from providing patients with necessary medical care, the ban represents gross interference in the patient-clinician relationship,” according to the ACOG brief. 

Potential implications if the ban is upheld include health risks to pregnant women at or near 15 weeks’ gestation, who might be forced to travel out of state, attempt self-induced abortion, or carry a pregnancy to term, according to the brief.

“Each of these outcomes increases the likelihood of negative consequences to a woman’s physical and psychological health that could be avoided if care were available,” according to the brief.

The brief also emphasizes that the ban will have a disproportionate effect on women who are already at risk for being medically underserved and who make up a majority of women seeking abortion: women of color, women in rural areas, and women with limited financial resources.

“This law is an example of harmful legislative interference into the practice of medicine,” said ACOG President J. Martin Tucker, MD, FACOG, on behalf of ACOG, in the statement.

“The outcome of this case could overturn decades of legal precedent that safeguards safe, legal abortion before viability, and the consequences of this case have national implications,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of ACOG, in an interview, as reported by ACOG press person Kate Connors.

“If the court does not strike down this law, clinicians in states across the country may face similar restrictions in their ability to provide necessary, evidence-based medical care,” Dr. Phipps explained. “If states are allowed to create new laws that further restrict abortion access, patients and families across the country will suffer,” she said.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will respond to the arguments of our brief and to the remarkable medical consensus represented by 25 organization signing the brief,” Dr. Phipps said. “We will continue educating and working through the judicial system in support of our patients’ access to evidence-based care and in opposition to legislative interference in the practice of medicine,” she emphasized.

Other medical organizations that signed the brief in support of the case against the Mississippi abortion ban included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Family Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, and the Society of Family Planning.

*This story was updated on 10/7/2021.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), took a prominent stand in the battle over abortion legislation by filing an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, according to a statement from ACOG issued on Sept. 21.

The case, filed by Thomas E. Dobbs, MD, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, and others, appeals the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to throw out Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.*

ACOG’s amicus brief, which was signed by 24 additional medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, “represents an unprecedented level of support from a diverse group of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals, which demonstrates the concrete medical consensus of opposition to abortion restriction legislation such as the law at the heart of Dobbs v. Jackson,” according to the ACOG statement.

The brief explains how the ban goes against not only the ability of health professionals to provide safe and essential care, but also goes against scientific evidence and medical ethics. “By preventing clinicians from providing patients with necessary medical care, the ban represents gross interference in the patient-clinician relationship,” according to the ACOG brief. 

Potential implications if the ban is upheld include health risks to pregnant women at or near 15 weeks’ gestation, who might be forced to travel out of state, attempt self-induced abortion, or carry a pregnancy to term, according to the brief.

“Each of these outcomes increases the likelihood of negative consequences to a woman’s physical and psychological health that could be avoided if care were available,” according to the brief.

The brief also emphasizes that the ban will have a disproportionate effect on women who are already at risk for being medically underserved and who make up a majority of women seeking abortion: women of color, women in rural areas, and women with limited financial resources.

“This law is an example of harmful legislative interference into the practice of medicine,” said ACOG President J. Martin Tucker, MD, FACOG, on behalf of ACOG, in the statement.

“The outcome of this case could overturn decades of legal precedent that safeguards safe, legal abortion before viability, and the consequences of this case have national implications,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of ACOG, in an interview, as reported by ACOG press person Kate Connors.

“If the court does not strike down this law, clinicians in states across the country may face similar restrictions in their ability to provide necessary, evidence-based medical care,” Dr. Phipps explained. “If states are allowed to create new laws that further restrict abortion access, patients and families across the country will suffer,” she said.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will respond to the arguments of our brief and to the remarkable medical consensus represented by 25 organization signing the brief,” Dr. Phipps said. “We will continue educating and working through the judicial system in support of our patients’ access to evidence-based care and in opposition to legislative interference in the practice of medicine,” she emphasized.

Other medical organizations that signed the brief in support of the case against the Mississippi abortion ban included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Family Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, and the Society of Family Planning.

*This story was updated on 10/7/2021.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), took a prominent stand in the battle over abortion legislation by filing an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, according to a statement from ACOG issued on Sept. 21.

The case, filed by Thomas E. Dobbs, MD, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, and others, appeals the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to throw out Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.*

ACOG’s amicus brief, which was signed by 24 additional medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, “represents an unprecedented level of support from a diverse group of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals, which demonstrates the concrete medical consensus of opposition to abortion restriction legislation such as the law at the heart of Dobbs v. Jackson,” according to the ACOG statement.

The brief explains how the ban goes against not only the ability of health professionals to provide safe and essential care, but also goes against scientific evidence and medical ethics. “By preventing clinicians from providing patients with necessary medical care, the ban represents gross interference in the patient-clinician relationship,” according to the ACOG brief. 

Potential implications if the ban is upheld include health risks to pregnant women at or near 15 weeks’ gestation, who might be forced to travel out of state, attempt self-induced abortion, or carry a pregnancy to term, according to the brief.

“Each of these outcomes increases the likelihood of negative consequences to a woman’s physical and psychological health that could be avoided if care were available,” according to the brief.

The brief also emphasizes that the ban will have a disproportionate effect on women who are already at risk for being medically underserved and who make up a majority of women seeking abortion: women of color, women in rural areas, and women with limited financial resources.

“This law is an example of harmful legislative interference into the practice of medicine,” said ACOG President J. Martin Tucker, MD, FACOG, on behalf of ACOG, in the statement.

“The outcome of this case could overturn decades of legal precedent that safeguards safe, legal abortion before viability, and the consequences of this case have national implications,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of ACOG, in an interview, as reported by ACOG press person Kate Connors.

“If the court does not strike down this law, clinicians in states across the country may face similar restrictions in their ability to provide necessary, evidence-based medical care,” Dr. Phipps explained. “If states are allowed to create new laws that further restrict abortion access, patients and families across the country will suffer,” she said.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will respond to the arguments of our brief and to the remarkable medical consensus represented by 25 organization signing the brief,” Dr. Phipps said. “We will continue educating and working through the judicial system in support of our patients’ access to evidence-based care and in opposition to legislative interference in the practice of medicine,” she emphasized.

Other medical organizations that signed the brief in support of the case against the Mississippi abortion ban included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Family Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, and the Society of Family Planning.

*This story was updated on 10/7/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Endometrial cancer is most commonly diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward the diagnosis of more advanced disease, for which cure is rare, and this is an important contributing factor toward the overall increasing mortality trend for endometrial cancer.

Histology is a major risk factor for advanced disease. For example, serous carcinoma, which accounts for approximately only 10% of all endometrial cancer diagnoses, comprises 25% of cases of advanced cases. Similarly, carcinosarcoma, a cell type known to be particularly aggressive, is relatively overrepresented among cases of advanced disease.

Advanced endometrial cancer includes cases of stage III (involvement of lymph nodes, ovaries, and vagina) and stage IV disease (with direct extension into pelvic viscera and distant metastases). In most cases of stage III disease, extrauterine metastases are microscopic and are detected only at the time of surgical staging. Bulky nodal disease within the pelvic and para-aortic nodal basins is less common but associated with worse prognosis than for patients with microscopic nodal metastases. Stage IV disease usually presents with peritoneal spread of disease including carcinomatosis, omental disease, and involvement of the small and large intestine.

Once advanced, endometrial cancer requires more than surgery alone, relying heavily on adjuvant therapies to achieve responses, particularly systemic therapy with platinum and taxane chemotherapy. In some cases, molecularly targeted therapy (such as trastuzumab for serous carcinomas that demonstrate overexpression of HER2) has been shown to be superior in efficacy.¹ Surgery may involve either radical nodal dissections to the infrarenal aortic basin, and/or peritoneal debulking procedures similar to that required for ovarian cancer. Perhaps because of patterns of disease distribution so similar to ovarian cancer, historically, sequencing of therapy focused on radical primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy.

In 2000, a retrospective series from Johns Hopkins University documented the outcomes of 65 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy.² They noted that survival was directly associated with degree of cytoreduction, with the best outcomes seen for those patients whose surgery resulted in no gross residual disease. Following these data, PDS with complete resection of all disease became the goal of primary therapy.

However, unlike ovarian cancer (which shares a similar disease distribution with advanced endometrial cancer) patients with endometrial cancer are more obese, older, and typically have more comorbidities. Therefore, radical primary debulking surgeries may be associated with poor patient perioperative outcomes, and feasibility of complete cytoreduction, particularly in very obese patients, can be limited. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been explored as an option. The potential virtue of NACT is that it allows for tumor deposits to decrease in size, or be eliminated, prior to surgery, resulting in a less morbid procedure for the patient.

Observed outcomes for NACT relative to PDS are mixed. When small series have compared the two for the treatment of advanced serous endometrial cancer, NACT was associated with decreased perioperative morbidity, with similar overall survival observed.^3,4

However, in larger series exploring patients within the National Cancer Database (a collection of over 1,500 hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer) outcomes appear different for the two approaches.^5,6 While PDS was initially associated with worse survival, at approximately 5-6 months from diagnosis, this changed and survival was observed to be consistently superior for this group. These data suggest that patients undergoing primary surgical cytoreduction may experience an early mortality risk, possibly secondary to the impact of surgery, but that if they are to survive beyond this point, they experience better outcomes. While the researchers attempted to control for risk factors of poor outcomes that might have systematically differed between the two groups, this specific database is limited in its ability to account for all fundamental differences between them. Only approximately 15% of women with advanced endometrial cancer were offered NACT during those time periods. This observation alone suggests that this likely represents a group specially selected for their poor candidacy for upfront debulking surgery, and inherently increased risk for death from all causes.

The question remains, is NACT appropriate for all patients or just those who are considered poor surgical candidates? Could all patients benefit from the decreased morbidity associated with surgery after NACT without compromising survival? Randomized controlled trials are necessary to answer this question as they are the only way to ensure that risk factors for poor outcomes (such as histology, disease distribution, medical comorbidities) are equally distributed among both groups.

In the meantime, gynecologic oncologists should take a cautious approach to decision making regarding sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in the setting of a new diagnosis of advanced endometrial cancer. Arguably more important than surgical interventions, access to molecularly targeted systemic therapy is likely to bring the best outcomes for advanced endometrial cancer. Carboplatin and paclitaxel are the current gold standard of care for frontline systemic therapy; however, response rates with this regimen are less favorable for endometrial cancer than for ovarian cancer. Work is being done to test novel therapies against actionable targets to use as alternatives or as adjuncts to traditional chemotherapy regimens. In doing so, clinicians are learning to distinguish endometrial cancers by more than simply their histologic features, but also by their molecular profiles.

Advanced endometrial cancer is a serious disease with high lethality. Future research should focus on ways to ensure toxicities of therapy, including surgery, are minimized while improving upon existing poor clinical outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no financial disclosures.

References

1. Fader AN et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(20):2044-51.

2. Bristow RE et al. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78(2):85-91.

3. Bogani G et al. Tumori 2019;105(1):92-97.

4. Wilkinson-Ryan I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(1):63-8.

5. Tobias CJ et al. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(12):e2028612.

6. Chambers LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160(2):405-12.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.

Remarkable advances in care for early pregnancy loss (EPL) have occurred over the past several years. Misoprostol with mifepristone pretreatment is now the gold standard for medical management after recent research showed that this regimen improves both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical management.¹ Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA)’s portability, effectiveness, and safety ensure that providers can offer procedural EPL management in almost any clinical setting. Medication management and in-office uterine aspiration are two evidence-based options for EPL management that may increase access for the 25% of pregnant women who experience EPL. Unfortunately, many women do not have access to either option. Equitable access to early pregnancy loss management can be achieved by expanding access to mifepristone and office-based MVA.

However, access to mifepristone and initiating office-based MVA is challenging. Mifepristone is one of several medications regulated under the Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program.²

The REMS guidelines restrict clinicians in prescribing and dispensing mifepristone, including the key provision that mifepristone may be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals. Clinicians cannot write a prescription for mifepristone for a patient to pick up at the pharmacy. Efforts are underway to roll back the REMS. Barriers to office-based MVA include time, culture shift among staff, gathering equipment, and creating protocols. Clinicians can improve access to EPL management in a variety of ways:

• MVA training: Ob.gyns. who lack training in MVA use can take advantage of several programs designed to teach the skill to clinicians, including programs such as Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management (TEAMM).^3,4 MVA is easy to learn for ob.gyns. and procedural complications are uncommon. In the office setting, complications requiring transfer to a higher level of care are rare.⁵ With adequate training, whether during residency or afterward, ob.gyns. can learn to safely and effectively use MVA for procedural EPL management in the office and in the emergency department.
• Partnerships with pharmacists to reduce barriers to mifepristone: Ob.gyns. working in a variety of clinical settings, including independent clinics, critical access hospitals, community hospitals, and academic medical centers, have worked closely with on-site pharmacists to place mifepristone on their practice sites’ formularies.⁶ These ob.gyn.–pharmacist collaborations often require explanations to institutional Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees of the benefits of mifepristone to patients, detailed indications for mifepristone’s use, and methods to secure mifepristone on site.
• Partnerships with emergency department and outpatient nursing and administration to promote MVA: Provision of MVA is ideal for safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedural EPL management in both the emergency department and outpatient setting. However, access to MVA in emergency rooms and outpatient clinical settings is suboptimal. Some clinicians push back against MVA use in the emergency department, citing fears that performing the procedure in the emergency department unnecessarily uses staff and resources reserved for patients with more critical illnesses. Ob.gyns. should also work with emergency medicine physicians and emergency department nursing staff and hospital administrators in explaining that MVA in the emergency room is patient centered and cost effective.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and training are two strategies that can increase access to mifepristone and MVA for EPL management. Use of mifepristone/misoprostol and office/emergency department MVA for treatment of EPL is patient centered, evidence based, feasible, highly effective, and timely. These two health care interventions are practical in almost any setting, including rural and other low-resource settings. By using these strategies to overcome the logistical and institutional challenges, ob.gyns. can help countless women with EPL gain access to the best EPL care.
 

Dr. Espey is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Jackson is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Michigan State University in Flint. They have no disclosures to report.

References

1. Schreiber CA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2161-70.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Mifeprex (mifepristone) information.

3. The TEAMM (Training, Education, and Advocacy in Miscarriage Management) Project. Training interprofessional teams to manage miscarriage. Accessed March 15, 2021.

4. Quinley KE et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;72(1):86-92.

5. Milingos DS et al. BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1268-71.

6. Calloway D et al. Contraception. 2021 Jul;104(1):24-8.