Gynecology

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.

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.

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Traumatic experiences, especially sexual assault, may put women at greater risk for poor brain health.

In the Ms Brain study, middle-aged women with trauma exposure had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) than those without trauma. In addition, the differences persisted even after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms. 

WMHs are “an important indicator of small vessel disease in the brain and have been linked to future stroke risk, dementia risk, and mortality,” lead investigator Rebecca Thurston, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

“What I take from this is, really, that sexual assault has implications for women’s health, far beyond exclusively mental health outcomes, but also for their cardiovascular health, as we have shown in other work and for their stroke and dementia risk as we are seeing in the present work,” Dr. Thurston added.

The study was presented at the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and has been accepted for publication in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior.
 

Beyond the usual suspects

As part of the study, 145 women (mean age, 59 years) free of clinical cardiovascular disease, stroke, or dementia provided their medical history, including history of traumatic experiences, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder and underwent magnetic resonance brain imaging for WMHs.

More than two-thirds (68%) of the women reported at least one trauma, most commonly sexual assault (23%).

In multivariate analysis, women with trauma exposure had greater WMH volume than women without trauma (P = .01), with sexual assault most strongly associated with greater WMH volume (P = .02).

The associations persisted after adjusting for depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.

“A history of sexual assault was particularly related to white matter hyperintensities in the parietal lobe, and these kinds of white matter hyperintensities have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease in a fairly pronounced way,” Dr. Thurston said.

“When we think about risk factors for stroke, dementia, we need to think beyond exclusively our usual suspects and also think about women [who experienced] psychological trauma and experienced sexual assault in particular. So ask about it and consider it part of your screening regimen,” she added.
 

‘Burgeoning’ literature

Commenting on the findings, Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Institute for Early Life Adversity Research, said the research adds to the “burgeoning literature on the long term neurobiological consequences of trauma and more specifically, sexual abuse, on brain imaging measures.”

“Our group and others reported several years ago that patients with mood disorders, more specifically bipolar disorder and major depression, had higher rates of WMH than matched controls. Those older studies did not control for a history of early life adversity such as childhood maltreatment,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

“In addition to this finding of increased WMH in subjects exposed to trauma is a very large literature documenting other central nervous system (CNS) changes in this population, including cortical thinning in certain brain areas and clearly an emerging finding that different forms of childhood maltreatment are associated with quite distinct structural brain alterations in adulthood,” he noted. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thurston and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

As more and more gynecologic therapies move to the outpatient setting, keeping up on the latest data regarding emerging options can be challenging. Furthermore, it can be difficult to justify purchasing expensive equipment for the office when a therapy is not covered by medical insurance plans. However, if a therapy is efficacious and patients are willing to pay out of pocket, clinicians may want to have these options available for their patients.

In an effort to work through these complex issues, a panel of experts was convened at the 47th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Palm Springs, California, on June 29, 2021. This article includes the salient points from that panel discussion.

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy is considered second-line therapy for the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning about the use of CO2 laser therapy and warned patients and clinicians that the FDA had not approved the treatment for vaginal rejuvenation or treatment of vaginal symptoms related to menopause, urinary incontinence, or sexual function. Despite this warning, laser treatments are still performed in many practices.

In 2019, the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) put out a joint practice consensus statement that essentially did not recommend the routine use of laser treatment for GSM, urinary incontinence, or lichen sclerosus.¹ Conversely, the 2020 American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) published a clinical consensus statement that spoke to the promising results of laser therapy for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, vaginal dryness, and menopausal dyspareunia, with benefits lasting up to 1 year.² This statement also suggested that the short-term safety profile of the CO2 laser device was favorable.

How CO2 lasers work

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy differs from unfractionated treatment (which often is used in the treatment of condyloma) in that it is not ablative. The laser works by using fractionated beams of light to penetrate the affected tissue to create small wounds in the epithelium and underlying lamina propria, which leads to collagen remodeling and regeneration that then results in the restoration of the superficial epithelium, vaginal rugae, and lubrication.³ Most clinicians perform 3 applications of the laser treatment 6 weeks apart, a recommendation that is based on manufacturer-sponsored studies in menopausal women.

Study results of patient outcomes with laser therapy

GSM. Several retrospective^4,5 and prospective studies^6-10 have looked at short- and longer-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment with the CO2 laser. All of these studies showed improvement in patient symptoms related to GSM.

The VeLVET trial, conducted by Paraiso and colleagues, was a randomized trial that compared CO2 laser treatment with vaginal estrogen in women with GSM.¹¹ While the study was underpowered due to cessation of enrollment once the FDA safety warning was issued, the authors reported that at 6 months, both the fractionated CO2 laser therapy group and the vaginal estrogen group had similar improvements, with 70% to 80% of participants reporting satisfaction with treatment. The authors concluded that laser therapy is likely to be as efficacious as vaginal estrogen and may be a good option for patients who cannot use vaginal estrogen to treat GSM.¹¹

Lichen sclerosus. Some data exist on the efficacy of laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus. One recently published randomized trial showed that at 6 months, fractionated CO2 laser treatment and prior treatment with high potency topical corticosteroids was associated with higher improvement in subjective symptoms and objective measures compared with clobetasol propionate treatment.¹² Another trial, however, revealed that laser treatment was not an effective monotherapy treatment for lichen sclerosus when compared with placebo.¹³ Fewer studies have examined the effect of laser therapy on urinary incontinence.

More prospective data are emerging, evidenced by trials currently registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. While some studies provide evidence that laser therapy may be efficacious in the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, additional data are needed to confirm the favorable outcomes observed with laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, and a significant amount of data are needed to evaluate the efficacy of laser treatment for urinary incontinence.

Until such evidence is available, fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy will remain a fee-for-service treatment option and will be inaccessible to patients who cannot afford the cost of treatment.

Continue to: Hydrogel urethral bulking...

Urethral bulking agents have been used for 5 decades in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. Unlike midurethral slings, in which many medical device companies use the same implant material (microporous, monofilament polypropylene mesh), the material for bulking agents has varied greatly. A 2017 Cochrane review of urethral bulking listed these agents used for this indication: autologous fat, carbon beads, calcium hydroxylapatite, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, glutaraldehyde cross-linked bovine collagen, hyaluronic acid with dextranomer, porcine dermal implant, polytetrafluoroethylene, and silicone particles.¹⁴ These agents can be injected through a transurethral or periurethral technique. The review failed to find superiority of one material or injection technique over another.

New bulking agent available

In January 2020, the FDA approved the premarket application for a new bulking agent. This new agent is a permanently implanted, nonresorbable hydrogel that consists of cross-linked polyacrylamide (2.5%) and water (97.5%). It is intended to be used with a transurethral bulking system that includes a rotatable sheath and two 23-guage needles; a total of 1.5 to 2.0 mL of the hydrogel is injected in 3 locations in the proximal urethra per session. Patients may undergo an additional 2 sessions, if needed, at least 4 weeks after the previous session.

Polyacrylamide hydrogel has been used as a bulking agent in cosmetic and ophthalmic surgery for many years, and it was first approved for medical use in Europe in 2001. The initial European data on its use as a urethral bulking agent was published in 2006.¹⁵ The first North American data came in 2014 from a multicenter, randomized trial that compared polyacrylamide hydrogel with collagen gel.¹⁶ This investigation followed 345 women for 12 months and concluded that the safety and efficacy of polyacrylamide hydrogel was not inferior to collagen, with a little over half of both cohorts demonstrating a 50% or greater decrease in incontinence episodes.

Since these initial studies, 3-year¹⁷ and 7-year safety and efficacy data¹⁸ have been reported, with reassuring findings, but both studies experienced significant attrition of the original group of patients. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with the procedure are pain at the injection site (4%–14%) and urinary tract infection (3%–7%); transient urinary retention rates range in incidence from 1.5% to 15%.¹⁹

Short procedure, long-term results

Given that a urethral bulking procedure can be done in less than 10 minutes in the office under local analgesia, this treatment may lend itself to use in more brittle patient populations. One study of women aged 80 or older showed a greater than 50% decrease in the number of daily pads used for up to 2 years after initial injection.²⁰ Another study found the greatest treatment success in women aged 60 years or older with fewer than 2.5 episodes of SUI per day.²¹

Platelet-rich plasma therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has been used in multiple disciplines for more than 2 decades as a treatment to regenerate damaged tissue, particularly in sports medicine for treating tendonitis as well as in plastic surgery, gynecology, urology, and ophthalmology, and good outcomes have been demonstrated with no serious adverse effects. PRP is a natural product in which high levels of platelets are concentrated through centrifugation with bioactive growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and insulin growth factor (IGF).²² The activated platelets are then injected autologously back into the patient’s tissue. This process releases activated growth factors that accelerate tissue healing by stimulating the number of reparative cells to create collagen production, angiogenesis, and neurogenesis while fighting infection and downregulating the autoimmune system.

Continue to: Uses for PRP in gynecology...

In gynecology, dating back to 2007 PRP was shown to facilitate wound healing, when Fanning and colleagues reported PRP applications in gynecologic operative wounds, such as hysterectomies and urogynecologic procedures, to reduce postoperative pain.²³ In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increasing trend in the application of PRP injections as an alternative therapy in gynecology to improve intimate health. PRP has been used to treat lichen sclerosus, atrophic vaginitis, SUI, and female sexual dysfunction; however, there is a dearth of studies that compare PRP with traditional therapies.

Runels and colleagues described the effects of localized injections of autologous PRP for the treatment of sexual dysfunction early in 2014.²⁴ Those authors pioneered PRP use in women with dyspareunia and other symptoms related to sexual dysfunction. Women were offered PRP injections into the periurethral area of the Skene glands and the clitoris. Sexual satisfaction and pain were improved but results did not reach statistical significance. The results of this pilot study of 11 patients suggested that PRP injections could perhaps be an effective method to treat certain types of female sexual dysfunction, including desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm.

In another pilot study, Long and colleagues looked at the effectiveness of local injection of PRP for treating women with SUI.²⁵ In that study, younger patients with mild severity of SUI had promising results, with up to 75% cured or improved. Results in the older group, with 50% cured or improved, did not reach statistical significance. Other small, limited studies have been conducted under the hypothesis that PRP as an “O-shot” may be a promising treatment that is a safe, effective, nonsurgical, and nonhormonal option for women with dyspareunia from lack of lubrication and related sexual dysfunction, such as decreased libido or arousal.^26-29 A pilot study by Behnia-Willison and colleagues demonstrated clinical improvement in PRP use as an alternative to topical steroids for lichen sclerosus.³⁰ Several other studies also have shown efficacy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus.^31-34

More evidence of efficacy needed

To date, preliminary studies suggest that PRP holds promise for a host of gynecologic conditions. Since PRP is autologous, there are no significant contraindications, and thus far there have been no known serious adverse effects. However, most health insurers still do not cover this therapy, so for now patients must pay out-of-pocket fees for these treatments.

As we continue to investigate therapies in regenerative medicine, the continued efforts of our discipline are required to conduct well-designed prospective, randomized controlled studies. While initial series suggest that PRP is safe, it is unlikely that this therapy will be embraced widely in the paradigm as an alternative treatment option for many genitourinary symptoms of menopause and vulvar disorders until efficacy is better established.

Radiofrequency therapy

For the past 20 years, radiofrequency (RF) energy has been used through the vagina, urethra, and periurethral tissues for the treatment of genitourinary symptoms, with limited success. More recently, because some patients hesitate to receive mesh implants for treatment of urinary incontinence,³⁵ there has been gravitation to office-based procedures.

In contrast to lasers, which transmit energy through light, RF waves (measured in hertz) transform the kinetic energy of the intracellular atoms, which move and collide, generating thermal energy.^36,37 RF therapy has been shown to increase the proportion of smooth muscle and connective tissue; stimulate proliferation of the epithelium, neovascularization, and collagen formation in the lamina propria; and improve natural lubrication.^36,38 In addition, RF is:

• ablative when the heat is capable of generating ablation and/or necrosis of the epidermis and dermis
• microablative when energy fractionation produces microscopic columns of ablative thermal lesions in the epidermis and upper dermis, resulting in microscopic columns of treated tissue interspersed with areas of untreated skin,³⁹ and
• nonablative when trauma occurs only in the dermis by heating without causing ablation of the epidermis.³⁹

The RF devices discussed below are used with settings for microablation in the treatment of SUI and sexual health/vaginal laxity, and with nonablative settings in the treatment of GSM.

RF for the treatment of urinary incontinence

Studies with RF have shown its benefits in urinary symptoms as secondary outcomes, such as improvement of SUI.^38,40 One theory that favors energy devices as a treatment for SUI is that the treatment strengthens suburethral and pubocervical support, thereby decreasing urethral mobility.⁴¹

In 2016, the Viveve system (Viveve) received FDA 510(k) clearance for “use in general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.” A single-site, randomized, nonblinded pilot study compared 1 treatment (group 1) versus 2 treatments (group 2) with the Viveve system for SUI in 35 participants.⁴² At 12 months, only for group 2 did mean scores on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7) and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) decrease by the minimum clinically important difference of 16 and 2.52 points, respectively, compared with baseline.

The ThermiVa device (ThermiGen, LLC) received FDA clearance for “use in dermatological and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis” in 2017. A single-site, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of this device for the treatment of SUI in 20 participants randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to active and sham groups.⁴³ At 12 weeks, mean scores of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and the ICIQ-UI-SF decreased by the minimal clinically important difference only in the treatment group arm. Additionally, 70% of treatment group participants had a negative stress test at 12 weeks compared with 0% of control group participants.⁴³ In another study of 48 patients who were followed longitudinally for 5 months, a substantial improvement in genital appearance was observed.⁴⁴ Assessment based on validated instruments demonstrated significant improvements in sexual function and SUI.⁴⁴

A microablative RF device (Wavetronic 6000 Touch Device, Megapulse HF FRAXX system; Loktal Medical Electronics) consists of a vaginal probe with 64 microneedles at the tip, each capable of penetrating to a depth of 1 mm. During activation, delivery of RF energy, which results in vaporization of tissue at 100 °C, occurs in a preset sequence of 8 needles at a time, preventing the overheating of intervening tissue between adjacent needles.

Slongo and colleagues conducted a 3-arm randomized clinical trial that included 117 climacteric women with SUI.⁴⁵ In group 1, treatment consisted of 3 monthly sessions of RF; group 2 received 12 weekly sessions of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT); and group 3 received RF treatment plus PFMT simultaneously. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 30 days after the end of therapy using validated questionnaires and scales for urinary, vaginal, and sexual functions, and cytology was used to assess vaginal atrophy. The association between RF and PFMT showed significant improvement in the SUI symptoms assessed by questionnaire. The vaginal symptoms and dryness showed more substantial improvement with the RF treatment, and vaginal laxity showed similar improvement in the 3 treatment groups.⁴⁵

Continue to: RF for the treatment of GSM...

RF for the treatment of GSM

For women who are not candidates for localized hormone therapy, as well as others who simply do not wish to use hormones, nonablative RF laser therapy may be an alternative for the management of GSM.

The VIVEVE I trial was one of the largest randomized, sham-controlled trials performed to determine the efficacy of vaginal rejuvenation using surface-cooled RF; 174 women received either RF treatment (90 J/cm²) or sham treatment (1 J/cm²).⁴⁶ Treated participants had a significant improvement in perception of vaginal laxity/looseness and sexual function up to 6 months posttreatment.⁴⁶ Overall, participants were satisfied with the treatment (77.8%–100%) and reported significant improvements in vaginal laxity and symptoms of atrophy. RF was well tolerated with minimal adverse effects, such as procedure-related erythema and edema of treated tissue, and vaginal discharge. One patient discontinued treatment because of procedural pain.^47,48

The ThermiVa system also was evaluated for efficacy in the treatment of GSM in a single-site, double-blind randomized controlled pilot study, the methods of which were previously described above.⁴³ GSM symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 12 weeks using the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and visual analog scale (VAS). At the 12-week follow-up, compared with baseline scores, VHI scores were unchanged in the control group and improved in the treatment group. Additionally, VAS scores for dyspareunia decreased in the treatment group compared with baseline while VAS for dyspareunia in the sham group did not change from baseline to 12 weeks.

RF treatment for sexual health

The efficacy of the Viveve RF system for female sexual dysfunction was evaluated in an international, randomized, controlled, single-blinded study (n = 154) that compared 6-month outcomes of RF treatment versus sham treatment.⁴⁶ Although there was a statistically significant improvement in patient-reported sexual dysfunction on validated instruments, it is essential to note that the study was powered for the primary outcome of vaginal laxity. In addition, the study was not adequately powered to evaluate safety; however, the adverse events reported were mild, and the most frequently reported adverse event was vaginal discharge.

Microablative monopolar RF treatment for GSM has been evaluated in 2 single-arm clinical trials that included a total of 70 patients.^39,49 Pre- and posttreatment outcomes were analyzed after delivery of 3 treatment sessions 28 to 40 days apart. Although the only significant improvement in quality of life was in the health domain of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Adapted Questionnaire (P = .04), significant improvements in sexual functioning were seen in terms of the desire (P = .002), lubrication (P = .001), satisfaction (P = .003), and pain (P = .007) domains of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire except for excitation and orgasm.³⁹ Overall, 100% of participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied with treatments, and 13 of 14 women felt “cured” or “much better.”³⁹ After treatment, significant increases in vaginal Lactobacillus (P<.001), decreases in vaginal pH (P<.001), improvements in maturation of vaginal cellularity (decreased parabasal cells, P<.001; increased superficial cells, P<.001), and increased VHI score (P<.001) alone occurred.⁴⁹ No adverse events beyond self-limited vaginal burning and redness were reported.^39,49 In another study mentioned above, the combination of RF and PFMT in sexual function does not offer benefits superior to those achieved by the therapies alone.⁴⁵

Evidence on RF treatment does not support marketing efforts

Radiofrequency devices have been marketed for a variety of genitourinary problems in women, with limited high-quality, randomized, comparative evidence of efficacy and durability in the literature. It is unfortunate that RF treatment continues to be promoted by practitioners around the world who cite small, short-term studies that lack biostatistical rigor in their reporting of protocols and results. Statements from both AUGS and the International Urogynecological Association have heeded caution on the use of lasers but they could not even evaluate RF devices due to lack of evidence.^2,41

Informed counseling and shared decision making remain the bottom line

By the year 2025, all members of the Baby Boom generation will be aged 60 or older. While in the past there has been a reluctance to discuss women’s sexual health, urinary incontinence, and GSM, the need for open discussion and a variety of treatment options for these conditions has never been more critical.

Many patients prefer office-based therapies over hospital-based procedures, and others are leery of synthetic implants. These concerns are leading toward great interest in the types of treatments covered in this article. However, it is paramount that clinicians are aware of the evidence-based data behind these emerging options so that we can openly and accurately counsel our patients.

As we have shown, the quality of the data behind these officed-based therapies varies significantly. Until a greater body of research data is available, we must carefully balance our desire to meet patient wishes with solid, informed counseling and shared decision making. ●

As more and more gynecologic therapies move to the outpatient setting, keeping up on the latest data regarding emerging options can be challenging. Furthermore, it can be difficult to justify purchasing expensive equipment for the office when a therapy is not covered by medical insurance plans. However, if a therapy is efficacious and patients are willing to pay out of pocket, clinicians may want to have these options available for their patients.

In an effort to work through these complex issues, a panel of experts was convened at the 47th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Palm Springs, California, on June 29, 2021. This article includes the salient points from that panel discussion.

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy is considered second-line therapy for the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning about the use of CO2 laser therapy and warned patients and clinicians that the FDA had not approved the treatment for vaginal rejuvenation or treatment of vaginal symptoms related to menopause, urinary incontinence, or sexual function. Despite this warning, laser treatments are still performed in many practices.

In 2019, the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) put out a joint practice consensus statement that essentially did not recommend the routine use of laser treatment for GSM, urinary incontinence, or lichen sclerosus.¹ Conversely, the 2020 American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) published a clinical consensus statement that spoke to the promising results of laser therapy for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, vaginal dryness, and menopausal dyspareunia, with benefits lasting up to 1 year.² This statement also suggested that the short-term safety profile of the CO2 laser device was favorable.

How CO2 lasers work

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy differs from unfractionated treatment (which often is used in the treatment of condyloma) in that it is not ablative. The laser works by using fractionated beams of light to penetrate the affected tissue to create small wounds in the epithelium and underlying lamina propria, which leads to collagen remodeling and regeneration that then results in the restoration of the superficial epithelium, vaginal rugae, and lubrication.³ Most clinicians perform 3 applications of the laser treatment 6 weeks apart, a recommendation that is based on manufacturer-sponsored studies in menopausal women.

Study results of patient outcomes with laser therapy

GSM. Several retrospective^4,5 and prospective studies^6-10 have looked at short- and longer-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment with the CO2 laser. All of these studies showed improvement in patient symptoms related to GSM.

The VeLVET trial, conducted by Paraiso and colleagues, was a randomized trial that compared CO2 laser treatment with vaginal estrogen in women with GSM.¹¹ While the study was underpowered due to cessation of enrollment once the FDA safety warning was issued, the authors reported that at 6 months, both the fractionated CO2 laser therapy group and the vaginal estrogen group had similar improvements, with 70% to 80% of participants reporting satisfaction with treatment. The authors concluded that laser therapy is likely to be as efficacious as vaginal estrogen and may be a good option for patients who cannot use vaginal estrogen to treat GSM.¹¹

Lichen sclerosus. Some data exist on the efficacy of laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus. One recently published randomized trial showed that at 6 months, fractionated CO2 laser treatment and prior treatment with high potency topical corticosteroids was associated with higher improvement in subjective symptoms and objective measures compared with clobetasol propionate treatment.¹² Another trial, however, revealed that laser treatment was not an effective monotherapy treatment for lichen sclerosus when compared with placebo.¹³ Fewer studies have examined the effect of laser therapy on urinary incontinence.

More prospective data are emerging, evidenced by trials currently registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. While some studies provide evidence that laser therapy may be efficacious in the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, additional data are needed to confirm the favorable outcomes observed with laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, and a significant amount of data are needed to evaluate the efficacy of laser treatment for urinary incontinence.

Until such evidence is available, fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy will remain a fee-for-service treatment option and will be inaccessible to patients who cannot afford the cost of treatment.

Continue to: Hydrogel urethral bulking...

Urethral bulking agents have been used for 5 decades in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. Unlike midurethral slings, in which many medical device companies use the same implant material (microporous, monofilament polypropylene mesh), the material for bulking agents has varied greatly. A 2017 Cochrane review of urethral bulking listed these agents used for this indication: autologous fat, carbon beads, calcium hydroxylapatite, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, glutaraldehyde cross-linked bovine collagen, hyaluronic acid with dextranomer, porcine dermal implant, polytetrafluoroethylene, and silicone particles.¹⁴ These agents can be injected through a transurethral or periurethral technique. The review failed to find superiority of one material or injection technique over another.

New bulking agent available

In January 2020, the FDA approved the premarket application for a new bulking agent. This new agent is a permanently implanted, nonresorbable hydrogel that consists of cross-linked polyacrylamide (2.5%) and water (97.5%). It is intended to be used with a transurethral bulking system that includes a rotatable sheath and two 23-guage needles; a total of 1.5 to 2.0 mL of the hydrogel is injected in 3 locations in the proximal urethra per session. Patients may undergo an additional 2 sessions, if needed, at least 4 weeks after the previous session.

Polyacrylamide hydrogel has been used as a bulking agent in cosmetic and ophthalmic surgery for many years, and it was first approved for medical use in Europe in 2001. The initial European data on its use as a urethral bulking agent was published in 2006.¹⁵ The first North American data came in 2014 from a multicenter, randomized trial that compared polyacrylamide hydrogel with collagen gel.¹⁶ This investigation followed 345 women for 12 months and concluded that the safety and efficacy of polyacrylamide hydrogel was not inferior to collagen, with a little over half of both cohorts demonstrating a 50% or greater decrease in incontinence episodes.

Since these initial studies, 3-year¹⁷ and 7-year safety and efficacy data¹⁸ have been reported, with reassuring findings, but both studies experienced significant attrition of the original group of patients. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with the procedure are pain at the injection site (4%–14%) and urinary tract infection (3%–7%); transient urinary retention rates range in incidence from 1.5% to 15%.¹⁹

Short procedure, long-term results

Given that a urethral bulking procedure can be done in less than 10 minutes in the office under local analgesia, this treatment may lend itself to use in more brittle patient populations. One study of women aged 80 or older showed a greater than 50% decrease in the number of daily pads used for up to 2 years after initial injection.²⁰ Another study found the greatest treatment success in women aged 60 years or older with fewer than 2.5 episodes of SUI per day.²¹

Platelet-rich plasma therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has been used in multiple disciplines for more than 2 decades as a treatment to regenerate damaged tissue, particularly in sports medicine for treating tendonitis as well as in plastic surgery, gynecology, urology, and ophthalmology, and good outcomes have been demonstrated with no serious adverse effects. PRP is a natural product in which high levels of platelets are concentrated through centrifugation with bioactive growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and insulin growth factor (IGF).²² The activated platelets are then injected autologously back into the patient’s tissue. This process releases activated growth factors that accelerate tissue healing by stimulating the number of reparative cells to create collagen production, angiogenesis, and neurogenesis while fighting infection and downregulating the autoimmune system.

Continue to: Uses for PRP in gynecology...

In gynecology, dating back to 2007 PRP was shown to facilitate wound healing, when Fanning and colleagues reported PRP applications in gynecologic operative wounds, such as hysterectomies and urogynecologic procedures, to reduce postoperative pain.²³ In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increasing trend in the application of PRP injections as an alternative therapy in gynecology to improve intimate health. PRP has been used to treat lichen sclerosus, atrophic vaginitis, SUI, and female sexual dysfunction; however, there is a dearth of studies that compare PRP with traditional therapies.

Runels and colleagues described the effects of localized injections of autologous PRP for the treatment of sexual dysfunction early in 2014.²⁴ Those authors pioneered PRP use in women with dyspareunia and other symptoms related to sexual dysfunction. Women were offered PRP injections into the periurethral area of the Skene glands and the clitoris. Sexual satisfaction and pain were improved but results did not reach statistical significance. The results of this pilot study of 11 patients suggested that PRP injections could perhaps be an effective method to treat certain types of female sexual dysfunction, including desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm.

In another pilot study, Long and colleagues looked at the effectiveness of local injection of PRP for treating women with SUI.²⁵ In that study, younger patients with mild severity of SUI had promising results, with up to 75% cured or improved. Results in the older group, with 50% cured or improved, did not reach statistical significance. Other small, limited studies have been conducted under the hypothesis that PRP as an “O-shot” may be a promising treatment that is a safe, effective, nonsurgical, and nonhormonal option for women with dyspareunia from lack of lubrication and related sexual dysfunction, such as decreased libido or arousal.^26-29 A pilot study by Behnia-Willison and colleagues demonstrated clinical improvement in PRP use as an alternative to topical steroids for lichen sclerosus.³⁰ Several other studies also have shown efficacy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus.^31-34

More evidence of efficacy needed

To date, preliminary studies suggest that PRP holds promise for a host of gynecologic conditions. Since PRP is autologous, there are no significant contraindications, and thus far there have been no known serious adverse effects. However, most health insurers still do not cover this therapy, so for now patients must pay out-of-pocket fees for these treatments.

As we continue to investigate therapies in regenerative medicine, the continued efforts of our discipline are required to conduct well-designed prospective, randomized controlled studies. While initial series suggest that PRP is safe, it is unlikely that this therapy will be embraced widely in the paradigm as an alternative treatment option for many genitourinary symptoms of menopause and vulvar disorders until efficacy is better established.

Radiofrequency therapy

For the past 20 years, radiofrequency (RF) energy has been used through the vagina, urethra, and periurethral tissues for the treatment of genitourinary symptoms, with limited success. More recently, because some patients hesitate to receive mesh implants for treatment of urinary incontinence,³⁵ there has been gravitation to office-based procedures.

In contrast to lasers, which transmit energy through light, RF waves (measured in hertz) transform the kinetic energy of the intracellular atoms, which move and collide, generating thermal energy.^36,37 RF therapy has been shown to increase the proportion of smooth muscle and connective tissue; stimulate proliferation of the epithelium, neovascularization, and collagen formation in the lamina propria; and improve natural lubrication.^36,38 In addition, RF is:

• ablative when the heat is capable of generating ablation and/or necrosis of the epidermis and dermis
• microablative when energy fractionation produces microscopic columns of ablative thermal lesions in the epidermis and upper dermis, resulting in microscopic columns of treated tissue interspersed with areas of untreated skin,³⁹ and
• nonablative when trauma occurs only in the dermis by heating without causing ablation of the epidermis.³⁹

The RF devices discussed below are used with settings for microablation in the treatment of SUI and sexual health/vaginal laxity, and with nonablative settings in the treatment of GSM.

RF for the treatment of urinary incontinence

Studies with RF have shown its benefits in urinary symptoms as secondary outcomes, such as improvement of SUI.^38,40 One theory that favors energy devices as a treatment for SUI is that the treatment strengthens suburethral and pubocervical support, thereby decreasing urethral mobility.⁴¹

In 2016, the Viveve system (Viveve) received FDA 510(k) clearance for “use in general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.” A single-site, randomized, nonblinded pilot study compared 1 treatment (group 1) versus 2 treatments (group 2) with the Viveve system for SUI in 35 participants.⁴² At 12 months, only for group 2 did mean scores on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7) and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) decrease by the minimum clinically important difference of 16 and 2.52 points, respectively, compared with baseline.

The ThermiVa device (ThermiGen, LLC) received FDA clearance for “use in dermatological and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis” in 2017. A single-site, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of this device for the treatment of SUI in 20 participants randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to active and sham groups.⁴³ At 12 weeks, mean scores of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and the ICIQ-UI-SF decreased by the minimal clinically important difference only in the treatment group arm. Additionally, 70% of treatment group participants had a negative stress test at 12 weeks compared with 0% of control group participants.⁴³ In another study of 48 patients who were followed longitudinally for 5 months, a substantial improvement in genital appearance was observed.⁴⁴ Assessment based on validated instruments demonstrated significant improvements in sexual function and SUI.⁴⁴

A microablative RF device (Wavetronic 6000 Touch Device, Megapulse HF FRAXX system; Loktal Medical Electronics) consists of a vaginal probe with 64 microneedles at the tip, each capable of penetrating to a depth of 1 mm. During activation, delivery of RF energy, which results in vaporization of tissue at 100 °C, occurs in a preset sequence of 8 needles at a time, preventing the overheating of intervening tissue between adjacent needles.

Slongo and colleagues conducted a 3-arm randomized clinical trial that included 117 climacteric women with SUI.⁴⁵ In group 1, treatment consisted of 3 monthly sessions of RF; group 2 received 12 weekly sessions of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT); and group 3 received RF treatment plus PFMT simultaneously. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 30 days after the end of therapy using validated questionnaires and scales for urinary, vaginal, and sexual functions, and cytology was used to assess vaginal atrophy. The association between RF and PFMT showed significant improvement in the SUI symptoms assessed by questionnaire. The vaginal symptoms and dryness showed more substantial improvement with the RF treatment, and vaginal laxity showed similar improvement in the 3 treatment groups.⁴⁵

Continue to: RF for the treatment of GSM...

RF for the treatment of GSM

For women who are not candidates for localized hormone therapy, as well as others who simply do not wish to use hormones, nonablative RF laser therapy may be an alternative for the management of GSM.

The VIVEVE I trial was one of the largest randomized, sham-controlled trials performed to determine the efficacy of vaginal rejuvenation using surface-cooled RF; 174 women received either RF treatment (90 J/cm²) or sham treatment (1 J/cm²).⁴⁶ Treated participants had a significant improvement in perception of vaginal laxity/looseness and sexual function up to 6 months posttreatment.⁴⁶ Overall, participants were satisfied with the treatment (77.8%–100%) and reported significant improvements in vaginal laxity and symptoms of atrophy. RF was well tolerated with minimal adverse effects, such as procedure-related erythema and edema of treated tissue, and vaginal discharge. One patient discontinued treatment because of procedural pain.^47,48

The ThermiVa system also was evaluated for efficacy in the treatment of GSM in a single-site, double-blind randomized controlled pilot study, the methods of which were previously described above.⁴³ GSM symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 12 weeks using the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and visual analog scale (VAS). At the 12-week follow-up, compared with baseline scores, VHI scores were unchanged in the control group and improved in the treatment group. Additionally, VAS scores for dyspareunia decreased in the treatment group compared with baseline while VAS for dyspareunia in the sham group did not change from baseline to 12 weeks.

RF treatment for sexual health

The efficacy of the Viveve RF system for female sexual dysfunction was evaluated in an international, randomized, controlled, single-blinded study (n = 154) that compared 6-month outcomes of RF treatment versus sham treatment.⁴⁶ Although there was a statistically significant improvement in patient-reported sexual dysfunction on validated instruments, it is essential to note that the study was powered for the primary outcome of vaginal laxity. In addition, the study was not adequately powered to evaluate safety; however, the adverse events reported were mild, and the most frequently reported adverse event was vaginal discharge.

Microablative monopolar RF treatment for GSM has been evaluated in 2 single-arm clinical trials that included a total of 70 patients.^39,49 Pre- and posttreatment outcomes were analyzed after delivery of 3 treatment sessions 28 to 40 days apart. Although the only significant improvement in quality of life was in the health domain of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Adapted Questionnaire (P = .04), significant improvements in sexual functioning were seen in terms of the desire (P = .002), lubrication (P = .001), satisfaction (P = .003), and pain (P = .007) domains of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire except for excitation and orgasm.³⁹ Overall, 100% of participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied with treatments, and 13 of 14 women felt “cured” or “much better.”³⁹ After treatment, significant increases in vaginal Lactobacillus (P<.001), decreases in vaginal pH (P<.001), improvements in maturation of vaginal cellularity (decreased parabasal cells, P<.001; increased superficial cells, P<.001), and increased VHI score (P<.001) alone occurred.⁴⁹ No adverse events beyond self-limited vaginal burning and redness were reported.^39,49 In another study mentioned above, the combination of RF and PFMT in sexual function does not offer benefits superior to those achieved by the therapies alone.⁴⁵

Evidence on RF treatment does not support marketing efforts

Radiofrequency devices have been marketed for a variety of genitourinary problems in women, with limited high-quality, randomized, comparative evidence of efficacy and durability in the literature. It is unfortunate that RF treatment continues to be promoted by practitioners around the world who cite small, short-term studies that lack biostatistical rigor in their reporting of protocols and results. Statements from both AUGS and the International Urogynecological Association have heeded caution on the use of lasers but they could not even evaluate RF devices due to lack of evidence.^2,41

Informed counseling and shared decision making remain the bottom line

By the year 2025, all members of the Baby Boom generation will be aged 60 or older. While in the past there has been a reluctance to discuss women’s sexual health, urinary incontinence, and GSM, the need for open discussion and a variety of treatment options for these conditions has never been more critical.

Many patients prefer office-based therapies over hospital-based procedures, and others are leery of synthetic implants. These concerns are leading toward great interest in the types of treatments covered in this article. However, it is paramount that clinicians are aware of the evidence-based data behind these emerging options so that we can openly and accurately counsel our patients.

As we have shown, the quality of the data behind these officed-based therapies varies significantly. Until a greater body of research data is available, we must carefully balance our desire to meet patient wishes with solid, informed counseling and shared decision making. ●

As more and more gynecologic therapies move to the outpatient setting, keeping up on the latest data regarding emerging options can be challenging. Furthermore, it can be difficult to justify purchasing expensive equipment for the office when a therapy is not covered by medical insurance plans. However, if a therapy is efficacious and patients are willing to pay out of pocket, clinicians may want to have these options available for their patients.

In an effort to work through these complex issues, a panel of experts was convened at the 47th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Palm Springs, California, on June 29, 2021. This article includes the salient points from that panel discussion.

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy is considered second-line therapy for the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning about the use of CO2 laser therapy and warned patients and clinicians that the FDA had not approved the treatment for vaginal rejuvenation or treatment of vaginal symptoms related to menopause, urinary incontinence, or sexual function. Despite this warning, laser treatments are still performed in many practices.

In 2019, the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) put out a joint practice consensus statement that essentially did not recommend the routine use of laser treatment for GSM, urinary incontinence, or lichen sclerosus.¹ Conversely, the 2020 American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) published a clinical consensus statement that spoke to the promising results of laser therapy for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, vaginal dryness, and menopausal dyspareunia, with benefits lasting up to 1 year.² This statement also suggested that the short-term safety profile of the CO2 laser device was favorable.

How CO2 lasers work

Fractionated CO2 laser therapy differs from unfractionated treatment (which often is used in the treatment of condyloma) in that it is not ablative. The laser works by using fractionated beams of light to penetrate the affected tissue to create small wounds in the epithelium and underlying lamina propria, which leads to collagen remodeling and regeneration that then results in the restoration of the superficial epithelium, vaginal rugae, and lubrication.³ Most clinicians perform 3 applications of the laser treatment 6 weeks apart, a recommendation that is based on manufacturer-sponsored studies in menopausal women.

Study results of patient outcomes with laser therapy

GSM. Several retrospective^4,5 and prospective studies^6-10 have looked at short- and longer-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment with the CO2 laser. All of these studies showed improvement in patient symptoms related to GSM.

The VeLVET trial, conducted by Paraiso and colleagues, was a randomized trial that compared CO2 laser treatment with vaginal estrogen in women with GSM.¹¹ While the study was underpowered due to cessation of enrollment once the FDA safety warning was issued, the authors reported that at 6 months, both the fractionated CO2 laser therapy group and the vaginal estrogen group had similar improvements, with 70% to 80% of participants reporting satisfaction with treatment. The authors concluded that laser therapy is likely to be as efficacious as vaginal estrogen and may be a good option for patients who cannot use vaginal estrogen to treat GSM.¹¹

Lichen sclerosus. Some data exist on the efficacy of laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus. One recently published randomized trial showed that at 6 months, fractionated CO2 laser treatment and prior treatment with high potency topical corticosteroids was associated with higher improvement in subjective symptoms and objective measures compared with clobetasol propionate treatment.¹² Another trial, however, revealed that laser treatment was not an effective monotherapy treatment for lichen sclerosus when compared with placebo.¹³ Fewer studies have examined the effect of laser therapy on urinary incontinence.

More prospective data are emerging, evidenced by trials currently registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. While some studies provide evidence that laser therapy may be efficacious in the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy, additional data are needed to confirm the favorable outcomes observed with laser therapy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, and a significant amount of data are needed to evaluate the efficacy of laser treatment for urinary incontinence.

Until such evidence is available, fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy will remain a fee-for-service treatment option and will be inaccessible to patients who cannot afford the cost of treatment.

Continue to: Hydrogel urethral bulking...

Urethral bulking agents have been used for 5 decades in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. Unlike midurethral slings, in which many medical device companies use the same implant material (microporous, monofilament polypropylene mesh), the material for bulking agents has varied greatly. A 2017 Cochrane review of urethral bulking listed these agents used for this indication: autologous fat, carbon beads, calcium hydroxylapatite, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, glutaraldehyde cross-linked bovine collagen, hyaluronic acid with dextranomer, porcine dermal implant, polytetrafluoroethylene, and silicone particles.¹⁴ These agents can be injected through a transurethral or periurethral technique. The review failed to find superiority of one material or injection technique over another.

New bulking agent available

In January 2020, the FDA approved the premarket application for a new bulking agent. This new agent is a permanently implanted, nonresorbable hydrogel that consists of cross-linked polyacrylamide (2.5%) and water (97.5%). It is intended to be used with a transurethral bulking system that includes a rotatable sheath and two 23-guage needles; a total of 1.5 to 2.0 mL of the hydrogel is injected in 3 locations in the proximal urethra per session. Patients may undergo an additional 2 sessions, if needed, at least 4 weeks after the previous session.

Polyacrylamide hydrogel has been used as a bulking agent in cosmetic and ophthalmic surgery for many years, and it was first approved for medical use in Europe in 2001. The initial European data on its use as a urethral bulking agent was published in 2006.¹⁵ The first North American data came in 2014 from a multicenter, randomized trial that compared polyacrylamide hydrogel with collagen gel.¹⁶ This investigation followed 345 women for 12 months and concluded that the safety and efficacy of polyacrylamide hydrogel was not inferior to collagen, with a little over half of both cohorts demonstrating a 50% or greater decrease in incontinence episodes.

Since these initial studies, 3-year¹⁷ and 7-year safety and efficacy data¹⁸ have been reported, with reassuring findings, but both studies experienced significant attrition of the original group of patients. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with the procedure are pain at the injection site (4%–14%) and urinary tract infection (3%–7%); transient urinary retention rates range in incidence from 1.5% to 15%.¹⁹

Short procedure, long-term results

Given that a urethral bulking procedure can be done in less than 10 minutes in the office under local analgesia, this treatment may lend itself to use in more brittle patient populations. One study of women aged 80 or older showed a greater than 50% decrease in the number of daily pads used for up to 2 years after initial injection.²⁰ Another study found the greatest treatment success in women aged 60 years or older with fewer than 2.5 episodes of SUI per day.²¹

Platelet-rich plasma therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has been used in multiple disciplines for more than 2 decades as a treatment to regenerate damaged tissue, particularly in sports medicine for treating tendonitis as well as in plastic surgery, gynecology, urology, and ophthalmology, and good outcomes have been demonstrated with no serious adverse effects. PRP is a natural product in which high levels of platelets are concentrated through centrifugation with bioactive growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and insulin growth factor (IGF).²² The activated platelets are then injected autologously back into the patient’s tissue. This process releases activated growth factors that accelerate tissue healing by stimulating the number of reparative cells to create collagen production, angiogenesis, and neurogenesis while fighting infection and downregulating the autoimmune system.

Continue to: Uses for PRP in gynecology...

In gynecology, dating back to 2007 PRP was shown to facilitate wound healing, when Fanning and colleagues reported PRP applications in gynecologic operative wounds, such as hysterectomies and urogynecologic procedures, to reduce postoperative pain.²³ In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increasing trend in the application of PRP injections as an alternative therapy in gynecology to improve intimate health. PRP has been used to treat lichen sclerosus, atrophic vaginitis, SUI, and female sexual dysfunction; however, there is a dearth of studies that compare PRP with traditional therapies.

Runels and colleagues described the effects of localized injections of autologous PRP for the treatment of sexual dysfunction early in 2014.²⁴ Those authors pioneered PRP use in women with dyspareunia and other symptoms related to sexual dysfunction. Women were offered PRP injections into the periurethral area of the Skene glands and the clitoris. Sexual satisfaction and pain were improved but results did not reach statistical significance. The results of this pilot study of 11 patients suggested that PRP injections could perhaps be an effective method to treat certain types of female sexual dysfunction, including desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm.

In another pilot study, Long and colleagues looked at the effectiveness of local injection of PRP for treating women with SUI.²⁵ In that study, younger patients with mild severity of SUI had promising results, with up to 75% cured or improved. Results in the older group, with 50% cured or improved, did not reach statistical significance. Other small, limited studies have been conducted under the hypothesis that PRP as an “O-shot” may be a promising treatment that is a safe, effective, nonsurgical, and nonhormonal option for women with dyspareunia from lack of lubrication and related sexual dysfunction, such as decreased libido or arousal.^26-29 A pilot study by Behnia-Willison and colleagues demonstrated clinical improvement in PRP use as an alternative to topical steroids for lichen sclerosus.³⁰ Several other studies also have shown efficacy for the treatment of lichen sclerosus.^31-34

More evidence of efficacy needed

To date, preliminary studies suggest that PRP holds promise for a host of gynecologic conditions. Since PRP is autologous, there are no significant contraindications, and thus far there have been no known serious adverse effects. However, most health insurers still do not cover this therapy, so for now patients must pay out-of-pocket fees for these treatments.

As we continue to investigate therapies in regenerative medicine, the continued efforts of our discipline are required to conduct well-designed prospective, randomized controlled studies. While initial series suggest that PRP is safe, it is unlikely that this therapy will be embraced widely in the paradigm as an alternative treatment option for many genitourinary symptoms of menopause and vulvar disorders until efficacy is better established.

Radiofrequency therapy

For the past 20 years, radiofrequency (RF) energy has been used through the vagina, urethra, and periurethral tissues for the treatment of genitourinary symptoms, with limited success. More recently, because some patients hesitate to receive mesh implants for treatment of urinary incontinence,³⁵ there has been gravitation to office-based procedures.

In contrast to lasers, which transmit energy through light, RF waves (measured in hertz) transform the kinetic energy of the intracellular atoms, which move and collide, generating thermal energy.^36,37 RF therapy has been shown to increase the proportion of smooth muscle and connective tissue; stimulate proliferation of the epithelium, neovascularization, and collagen formation in the lamina propria; and improve natural lubrication.^36,38 In addition, RF is:

• ablative when the heat is capable of generating ablation and/or necrosis of the epidermis and dermis
• microablative when energy fractionation produces microscopic columns of ablative thermal lesions in the epidermis and upper dermis, resulting in microscopic columns of treated tissue interspersed with areas of untreated skin,³⁹ and
• nonablative when trauma occurs only in the dermis by heating without causing ablation of the epidermis.³⁹

The RF devices discussed below are used with settings for microablation in the treatment of SUI and sexual health/vaginal laxity, and with nonablative settings in the treatment of GSM.

RF for the treatment of urinary incontinence

Studies with RF have shown its benefits in urinary symptoms as secondary outcomes, such as improvement of SUI.^38,40 One theory that favors energy devices as a treatment for SUI is that the treatment strengthens suburethral and pubocervical support, thereby decreasing urethral mobility.⁴¹

In 2016, the Viveve system (Viveve) received FDA 510(k) clearance for “use in general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.” A single-site, randomized, nonblinded pilot study compared 1 treatment (group 1) versus 2 treatments (group 2) with the Viveve system for SUI in 35 participants.⁴² At 12 months, only for group 2 did mean scores on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7) and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) decrease by the minimum clinically important difference of 16 and 2.52 points, respectively, compared with baseline.

The ThermiVa device (ThermiGen, LLC) received FDA clearance for “use in dermatological and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis” in 2017. A single-site, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of this device for the treatment of SUI in 20 participants randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to active and sham groups.⁴³ At 12 weeks, mean scores of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and the ICIQ-UI-SF decreased by the minimal clinically important difference only in the treatment group arm. Additionally, 70% of treatment group participants had a negative stress test at 12 weeks compared with 0% of control group participants.⁴³ In another study of 48 patients who were followed longitudinally for 5 months, a substantial improvement in genital appearance was observed.⁴⁴ Assessment based on validated instruments demonstrated significant improvements in sexual function and SUI.⁴⁴

A microablative RF device (Wavetronic 6000 Touch Device, Megapulse HF FRAXX system; Loktal Medical Electronics) consists of a vaginal probe with 64 microneedles at the tip, each capable of penetrating to a depth of 1 mm. During activation, delivery of RF energy, which results in vaporization of tissue at 100 °C, occurs in a preset sequence of 8 needles at a time, preventing the overheating of intervening tissue between adjacent needles.

Slongo and colleagues conducted a 3-arm randomized clinical trial that included 117 climacteric women with SUI.⁴⁵ In group 1, treatment consisted of 3 monthly sessions of RF; group 2 received 12 weekly sessions of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT); and group 3 received RF treatment plus PFMT simultaneously. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 30 days after the end of therapy using validated questionnaires and scales for urinary, vaginal, and sexual functions, and cytology was used to assess vaginal atrophy. The association between RF and PFMT showed significant improvement in the SUI symptoms assessed by questionnaire. The vaginal symptoms and dryness showed more substantial improvement with the RF treatment, and vaginal laxity showed similar improvement in the 3 treatment groups.⁴⁵

Continue to: RF for the treatment of GSM...

RF for the treatment of GSM

For women who are not candidates for localized hormone therapy, as well as others who simply do not wish to use hormones, nonablative RF laser therapy may be an alternative for the management of GSM.

The VIVEVE I trial was one of the largest randomized, sham-controlled trials performed to determine the efficacy of vaginal rejuvenation using surface-cooled RF; 174 women received either RF treatment (90 J/cm²) or sham treatment (1 J/cm²).⁴⁶ Treated participants had a significant improvement in perception of vaginal laxity/looseness and sexual function up to 6 months posttreatment.⁴⁶ Overall, participants were satisfied with the treatment (77.8%–100%) and reported significant improvements in vaginal laxity and symptoms of atrophy. RF was well tolerated with minimal adverse effects, such as procedure-related erythema and edema of treated tissue, and vaginal discharge. One patient discontinued treatment because of procedural pain.^47,48

The ThermiVa system also was evaluated for efficacy in the treatment of GSM in a single-site, double-blind randomized controlled pilot study, the methods of which were previously described above.⁴³ GSM symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 12 weeks using the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and visual analog scale (VAS). At the 12-week follow-up, compared with baseline scores, VHI scores were unchanged in the control group and improved in the treatment group. Additionally, VAS scores for dyspareunia decreased in the treatment group compared with baseline while VAS for dyspareunia in the sham group did not change from baseline to 12 weeks.

RF treatment for sexual health

The efficacy of the Viveve RF system for female sexual dysfunction was evaluated in an international, randomized, controlled, single-blinded study (n = 154) that compared 6-month outcomes of RF treatment versus sham treatment.⁴⁶ Although there was a statistically significant improvement in patient-reported sexual dysfunction on validated instruments, it is essential to note that the study was powered for the primary outcome of vaginal laxity. In addition, the study was not adequately powered to evaluate safety; however, the adverse events reported were mild, and the most frequently reported adverse event was vaginal discharge.

Microablative monopolar RF treatment for GSM has been evaluated in 2 single-arm clinical trials that included a total of 70 patients.^39,49 Pre- and posttreatment outcomes were analyzed after delivery of 3 treatment sessions 28 to 40 days apart. Although the only significant improvement in quality of life was in the health domain of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Adapted Questionnaire (P = .04), significant improvements in sexual functioning were seen in terms of the desire (P = .002), lubrication (P = .001), satisfaction (P = .003), and pain (P = .007) domains of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire except for excitation and orgasm.³⁹ Overall, 100% of participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied with treatments, and 13 of 14 women felt “cured” or “much better.”³⁹ After treatment, significant increases in vaginal Lactobacillus (P<.001), decreases in vaginal pH (P<.001), improvements in maturation of vaginal cellularity (decreased parabasal cells, P<.001; increased superficial cells, P<.001), and increased VHI score (P<.001) alone occurred.⁴⁹ No adverse events beyond self-limited vaginal burning and redness were reported.^39,49 In another study mentioned above, the combination of RF and PFMT in sexual function does not offer benefits superior to those achieved by the therapies alone.⁴⁵

Evidence on RF treatment does not support marketing efforts

Radiofrequency devices have been marketed for a variety of genitourinary problems in women, with limited high-quality, randomized, comparative evidence of efficacy and durability in the literature. It is unfortunate that RF treatment continues to be promoted by practitioners around the world who cite small, short-term studies that lack biostatistical rigor in their reporting of protocols and results. Statements from both AUGS and the International Urogynecological Association have heeded caution on the use of lasers but they could not even evaluate RF devices due to lack of evidence.^2,41

Informed counseling and shared decision making remain the bottom line

By the year 2025, all members of the Baby Boom generation will be aged 60 or older. While in the past there has been a reluctance to discuss women’s sexual health, urinary incontinence, and GSM, the need for open discussion and a variety of treatment options for these conditions has never been more critical.

Many patients prefer office-based therapies over hospital-based procedures, and others are leery of synthetic implants. These concerns are leading toward great interest in the types of treatments covered in this article. However, it is paramount that clinicians are aware of the evidence-based data behind these emerging options so that we can openly and accurately counsel our patients.

As we have shown, the quality of the data behind these officed-based therapies varies significantly. Until a greater body of research data is available, we must carefully balance our desire to meet patient wishes with solid, informed counseling and shared decision making. ●

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

For patients who present with pesky vulvovaginal candidiasis, consider a course of ibrexafungerp, a first-in-class oral triterpenoid antifungal drug that was approved in June 2021, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, recommends.

“Ibrexafungerp, an inhibitor of beta (1-3)–glucan synthase, is important for many reasons,” Dr. Venkatesan, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It’s one of the few drugs that can be used to treat Candida glabrata when C. glabrata is resistant to azoles and echinocandins. As the second-most common Candida species after C. albicans, C. glabrata is more common in immunosuppressed patients and it can cause mucosal and invasive disease, so ibrexafungerp is a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium,” said Dr. Venkatesan, clinical professor of dermatology (affiliated) at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital and Clinics, adding that that vulvovaginal candidiasis can be tricky to diagnose. “In medical school, we learned that yeast infection in a woman presents as white, curd-like discharge, but that’s actually a minority of patients.”

For a patient who is being treated with topical steroids or estrogen for a genital condition, but is experiencing worsening itch, redness, or thick white discharge, she recommends performing a KOH exam.

“Instead of using a 15-blade scalpel, as we are used to performing on the skin for tinea, take a sterile [cotton swab], and swab the affected area. You can then apply it to a slide and perform a KOH exam as you normally would. Then look for yeast elements under the microscope. I also find it helpful to send for fungal culture to get speciation, especially in someone who’s not responding to therapy. This is because non-albicans yeast can be more resistant to azoles and require a different treatment plan.”

Often, patients with vulvovaginal candidiasis who present to her clinic are referred from an ob.gyn. and other general practitioners because they have failed a topical or oral azole. “I tend to avoid the topicals,” said Dr. Venkatesan, who is also president-elect of the North American chapter of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. “If the culture shows C. albicans, I usually treat with oral fluconazole, 150 mg or 200 mg once, and consider repeat weekly dosing. Many patients come to me because they have recurrent refractory disease, so giving it once weekly for 6-8 weeks while they work on their potential risk factors such as diabetic blood sugar control is sensible.”

Non-albicans yeast can be resistant to azoles. If the fungal culture shows C. glabrata in such patients, “consider a course of intravaginal boric acid suppositories,” she advised. “These used to be difficult to give patients, because you would either have to send the prescription to a compounding pharmacy, or have the patients buy the capsules and boric acid crystals separately and make them themselves. That always made me nervous because of the chance of errors. The safety and the concern of taking it by mouth is an issue.” But now, intravaginal boric acid suppositories are available on Amazon and other web sites, and are relatively affordable, she said, adding, “just make sure the patient doesn’t take it by mouth as this is very toxic.”

Dr. Venkatesan reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

For patients who present with pesky vulvovaginal candidiasis, consider a course of ibrexafungerp, a first-in-class oral triterpenoid antifungal drug that was approved in June 2021, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, recommends.

“Ibrexafungerp, an inhibitor of beta (1-3)–glucan synthase, is important for many reasons,” Dr. Venkatesan, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It’s one of the few drugs that can be used to treat Candida glabrata when C. glabrata is resistant to azoles and echinocandins. As the second-most common Candida species after C. albicans, C. glabrata is more common in immunosuppressed patients and it can cause mucosal and invasive disease, so ibrexafungerp is a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium,” said Dr. Venkatesan, clinical professor of dermatology (affiliated) at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital and Clinics, adding that that vulvovaginal candidiasis can be tricky to diagnose. “In medical school, we learned that yeast infection in a woman presents as white, curd-like discharge, but that’s actually a minority of patients.”

For a patient who is being treated with topical steroids or estrogen for a genital condition, but is experiencing worsening itch, redness, or thick white discharge, she recommends performing a KOH exam.

“Instead of using a 15-blade scalpel, as we are used to performing on the skin for tinea, take a sterile [cotton swab], and swab the affected area. You can then apply it to a slide and perform a KOH exam as you normally would. Then look for yeast elements under the microscope. I also find it helpful to send for fungal culture to get speciation, especially in someone who’s not responding to therapy. This is because non-albicans yeast can be more resistant to azoles and require a different treatment plan.”

Often, patients with vulvovaginal candidiasis who present to her clinic are referred from an ob.gyn. and other general practitioners because they have failed a topical or oral azole. “I tend to avoid the topicals,” said Dr. Venkatesan, who is also president-elect of the North American chapter of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. “If the culture shows C. albicans, I usually treat with oral fluconazole, 150 mg or 200 mg once, and consider repeat weekly dosing. Many patients come to me because they have recurrent refractory disease, so giving it once weekly for 6-8 weeks while they work on their potential risk factors such as diabetic blood sugar control is sensible.”

Non-albicans yeast can be resistant to azoles. If the fungal culture shows C. glabrata in such patients, “consider a course of intravaginal boric acid suppositories,” she advised. “These used to be difficult to give patients, because you would either have to send the prescription to a compounding pharmacy, or have the patients buy the capsules and boric acid crystals separately and make them themselves. That always made me nervous because of the chance of errors. The safety and the concern of taking it by mouth is an issue.” But now, intravaginal boric acid suppositories are available on Amazon and other web sites, and are relatively affordable, she said, adding, “just make sure the patient doesn’t take it by mouth as this is very toxic.”

Dr. Venkatesan reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

For patients who present with pesky vulvovaginal candidiasis, consider a course of ibrexafungerp, a first-in-class oral triterpenoid antifungal drug that was approved in June 2021, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, recommends.

“Ibrexafungerp, an inhibitor of beta (1-3)–glucan synthase, is important for many reasons,” Dr. Venkatesan, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said during the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “It’s one of the few drugs that can be used to treat Candida glabrata when C. glabrata is resistant to azoles and echinocandins. As the second-most common Candida species after C. albicans, C. glabrata is more common in immunosuppressed patients and it can cause mucosal and invasive disease, so ibrexafungerp is a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium,” said Dr. Venkatesan, clinical professor of dermatology (affiliated) at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital and Clinics, adding that that vulvovaginal candidiasis can be tricky to diagnose. “In medical school, we learned that yeast infection in a woman presents as white, curd-like discharge, but that’s actually a minority of patients.”

For a patient who is being treated with topical steroids or estrogen for a genital condition, but is experiencing worsening itch, redness, or thick white discharge, she recommends performing a KOH exam.

“Instead of using a 15-blade scalpel, as we are used to performing on the skin for tinea, take a sterile [cotton swab], and swab the affected area. You can then apply it to a slide and perform a KOH exam as you normally would. Then look for yeast elements under the microscope. I also find it helpful to send for fungal culture to get speciation, especially in someone who’s not responding to therapy. This is because non-albicans yeast can be more resistant to azoles and require a different treatment plan.”

Often, patients with vulvovaginal candidiasis who present to her clinic are referred from an ob.gyn. and other general practitioners because they have failed a topical or oral azole. “I tend to avoid the topicals,” said Dr. Venkatesan, who is also president-elect of the North American chapter of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. “If the culture shows C. albicans, I usually treat with oral fluconazole, 150 mg or 200 mg once, and consider repeat weekly dosing. Many patients come to me because they have recurrent refractory disease, so giving it once weekly for 6-8 weeks while they work on their potential risk factors such as diabetic blood sugar control is sensible.”

Non-albicans yeast can be resistant to azoles. If the fungal culture shows C. glabrata in such patients, “consider a course of intravaginal boric acid suppositories,” she advised. “These used to be difficult to give patients, because you would either have to send the prescription to a compounding pharmacy, or have the patients buy the capsules and boric acid crystals separately and make them themselves. That always made me nervous because of the chance of errors. The safety and the concern of taking it by mouth is an issue.” But now, intravaginal boric acid suppositories are available on Amazon and other web sites, and are relatively affordable, she said, adding, “just make sure the patient doesn’t take it by mouth as this is very toxic.”

Dr. Venkatesan reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Breasts that are heterogeneously dense or extremely dense on mammography are considered “dense breasts.” Breast density matters for 2 reasons: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts increases the risk of developing breast cancer.

Breast density measurement

A woman’s breast density is usually determined during her breast cancer screening with mammography by her radiologist through visual evaluation of the images taken. Breast density also can be measured from individual mammograms by computer software, and it can be estimated on computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the United States, information about breast density is usually included in a report sent from the radiologist to the referring clinician after a mammogram is taken, and may also be included in the patient letter following up screening mammography. In Europe, national reporting guidelines for physicians vary.

The density of a woman’s breast tissue is described using one of four BI-RADS® breast composition categories¹ as shown in the FIGURE.

A. ALMOST ENTIRELY FATTY – On a mammogram, most of the tissue appears dark gray or black, while small amounts of dense (or fibroglandular) tissue display as light gray or white. About 13% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts considered to be “fatty.”²

B. SCATTERED FIBROGLANDULAR DENSITY – There are scattered areas of dense (fibroglandular) tissue mixed with fat. Even in breasts with scattered areas of breast tissue, cancers can sometimes be missed when they look like areas of normal tissue or are within an area of denser tissue. About 43% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts with scattered fibroglandular tissue.²

C. HETEROGENEOUSLY DENSE – There are large portions of the breast where dense (fibroglandular) tissue could hide small masses. About 36% of all women aged 40 to 74 have heterogeneously dense breasts.²

D. EXTREMELY DENSE – Most of the breast appears to consist of dense (fibroglandular) tissue, creating a “white out” situation and making it extremely difficult to see through and lowering the sensitivity of mammography. About 7% of all women aged 40 to 74 have extremely dense breasts.²

Factors that may impact breast density

Age. Breasts tend to become less dense as women get older, especially after menopause (as the glandular tissue atrophies and the breasts may appear more fatty-replaced).

Postmenopausal hormone therapy. An increase in mammographic density is more common among women taking continuous combined hormonal therapy than for those using oral low-dose estrogen or transdermal estrogen therapy.

Lactation. Breast density increases with lactation.

Weight changes. Weight gain can increase the amount of fat relative to dense tissue, resulting in slightly lower density as a proportion of breast tissue overall. Similarly, weight loss can decrease the amount of fat in the breasts, making breast density appear greater overall. Importantly, there is no change in the amount of glandular tissue; only the relative proportions change.

Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. These medications can slightly reduce breast density. 

Because breast density may change with age and other factors, it should be assessed every year.

Breasts that are heterogeneously dense or extremely dense on mammography are considered “dense breasts.” Breast density matters for 2 reasons: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts increases the risk of developing breast cancer.

Breast density measurement

A woman’s breast density is usually determined during her breast cancer screening with mammography by her radiologist through visual evaluation of the images taken. Breast density also can be measured from individual mammograms by computer software, and it can be estimated on computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the United States, information about breast density is usually included in a report sent from the radiologist to the referring clinician after a mammogram is taken, and may also be included in the patient letter following up screening mammography. In Europe, national reporting guidelines for physicians vary.

The density of a woman’s breast tissue is described using one of four BI-RADS® breast composition categories¹ as shown in the FIGURE.

A. ALMOST ENTIRELY FATTY – On a mammogram, most of the tissue appears dark gray or black, while small amounts of dense (or fibroglandular) tissue display as light gray or white. About 13% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts considered to be “fatty.”²

B. SCATTERED FIBROGLANDULAR DENSITY – There are scattered areas of dense (fibroglandular) tissue mixed with fat. Even in breasts with scattered areas of breast tissue, cancers can sometimes be missed when they look like areas of normal tissue or are within an area of denser tissue. About 43% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts with scattered fibroglandular tissue.²

C. HETEROGENEOUSLY DENSE – There are large portions of the breast where dense (fibroglandular) tissue could hide small masses. About 36% of all women aged 40 to 74 have heterogeneously dense breasts.²

D. EXTREMELY DENSE – Most of the breast appears to consist of dense (fibroglandular) tissue, creating a “white out” situation and making it extremely difficult to see through and lowering the sensitivity of mammography. About 7% of all women aged 40 to 74 have extremely dense breasts.²

Factors that may impact breast density

Age. Breasts tend to become less dense as women get older, especially after menopause (as the glandular tissue atrophies and the breasts may appear more fatty-replaced).

Postmenopausal hormone therapy. An increase in mammographic density is more common among women taking continuous combined hormonal therapy than for those using oral low-dose estrogen or transdermal estrogen therapy.

Lactation. Breast density increases with lactation.

Weight changes. Weight gain can increase the amount of fat relative to dense tissue, resulting in slightly lower density as a proportion of breast tissue overall. Similarly, weight loss can decrease the amount of fat in the breasts, making breast density appear greater overall. Importantly, there is no change in the amount of glandular tissue; only the relative proportions change.

Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. These medications can slightly reduce breast density. 

Because breast density may change with age and other factors, it should be assessed every year.

Breasts that are heterogeneously dense or extremely dense on mammography are considered “dense breasts.” Breast density matters for 2 reasons: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts increases the risk of developing breast cancer.

Breast density measurement

A woman’s breast density is usually determined during her breast cancer screening with mammography by her radiologist through visual evaluation of the images taken. Breast density also can be measured from individual mammograms by computer software, and it can be estimated on computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the United States, information about breast density is usually included in a report sent from the radiologist to the referring clinician after a mammogram is taken, and may also be included in the patient letter following up screening mammography. In Europe, national reporting guidelines for physicians vary.

The density of a woman’s breast tissue is described using one of four BI-RADS® breast composition categories¹ as shown in the FIGURE.

A. ALMOST ENTIRELY FATTY – On a mammogram, most of the tissue appears dark gray or black, while small amounts of dense (or fibroglandular) tissue display as light gray or white. About 13% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts considered to be “fatty.”²

B. SCATTERED FIBROGLANDULAR DENSITY – There are scattered areas of dense (fibroglandular) tissue mixed with fat. Even in breasts with scattered areas of breast tissue, cancers can sometimes be missed when they look like areas of normal tissue or are within an area of denser tissue. About 43% of women aged 40 to 74 have breasts with scattered fibroglandular tissue.²

C. HETEROGENEOUSLY DENSE – There are large portions of the breast where dense (fibroglandular) tissue could hide small masses. About 36% of all women aged 40 to 74 have heterogeneously dense breasts.²

D. EXTREMELY DENSE – Most of the breast appears to consist of dense (fibroglandular) tissue, creating a “white out” situation and making it extremely difficult to see through and lowering the sensitivity of mammography. About 7% of all women aged 40 to 74 have extremely dense breasts.²

Factors that may impact breast density

Age. Breasts tend to become less dense as women get older, especially after menopause (as the glandular tissue atrophies and the breasts may appear more fatty-replaced).

Postmenopausal hormone therapy. An increase in mammographic density is more common among women taking continuous combined hormonal therapy than for those using oral low-dose estrogen or transdermal estrogen therapy.

Lactation. Breast density increases with lactation.

Weight changes. Weight gain can increase the amount of fat relative to dense tissue, resulting in slightly lower density as a proportion of breast tissue overall. Similarly, weight loss can decrease the amount of fat in the breasts, making breast density appear greater overall. Importantly, there is no change in the amount of glandular tissue; only the relative proportions change.

Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. These medications can slightly reduce breast density. 

Because breast density may change with age and other factors, it should be assessed every year.