Gynecology

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Beelen P, van den Brink MJ, Herman MC, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:187.e1-187.e10.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Counseling patients regarding treatment of HMB requires a realistic discussion about the risks of intervention and the expected outcomes. In addition to decreasing menstrual blood loss, treatment benefits of the LNG-IUS include a reversible form of intervention, minimal discomfort with placement in an office environment with an awake patient, and a reliable form of contraception. Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and progesterone-related adverse effects historically have been associated with LNG-IUS use and can lead to patient desires for device removal or additional intervention.

Similarly, in addition to endometrial ablation (EA) decreasing menstrual blood loss, its benefits include avoiding a hysterectomy with an outpatient procedure. Endometrial ablation does require a desire for no future pregnancies while using a reliable form of contraception. Risks of EA include failure to improve HMB or worsening pelvic pain that requires additional intervention, such as hysterectomy. Historically, clinical data suggest failure is more likely for women less than 40 years of age or with adenomyosis at the time of ablation.

Results of a long-term RCT by Beelen and colleagues may aid gynecologists in counseling patients on the risks and benefits of these 2 treatment options.

Details of the study

Performed between 2012 and 2016, this multicenter RCT evaluated primary intervention of the LNG-IUS in 132 women versus EA in 138 women. The women were older than age 34, did not want a future pregnancy, and had other etiologies of AUB eliminated.

The primary outcome was blood loss after 24 months as assessed with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score.

Secondary outcomes included controlled bleeding, defined as a PBAC score not exceeding 75 points; complications and reinterventions within 24 months; amenorrhea; spotting; dysmenorrhea; presence of clots; duration of blood loss; satisfaction with treatment; QoL; and sexual function.

The statistical null hypothesis of the trial was noninferiority of LNG-IUS treatment compared with EA treatment.

Results. Regarding the primary outcome, the mean PBAC score at 2 years was 64.8 for the LNG-IUS treatment group and 14.2 for the EA group. Importantly, however, the authors could not demonstrate noninferiority of the LNG-IUS compared with EA as a primary intervention for HMB.

For the secondary outcomes, there was no significant difference between groups, with both groups having a significant decrease in HMB at 3 months with PBAC scores that did not exceed 75 points: 60% in the LNG-IUS group and 83% in the EA group. In the LNG-IUS group, 35% of women received additional medical or surgical intervention versus 20% in the EA group.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its multicenter design, with 26 hospitals, and the long-term follow-up of 24 months. During the follow-up period, women were allowed to receive a reintervention as clinically indicated; thus, outcomes reflect results that are not from only a single designated intervention. For example, of the women in the LNG-IUS group, 34 received a surgical intervention, 31 (24%) underwent EA, and 9 (7%) underwent a hysterectomy. However, 6 of the 9 who underwent hysterectomy had a preceding EA, and these 6 women are not reported as surgical intervention of EA since the original designation for intervention was the LNG-IUS.

Notably, the patients and physicians were not blinded to the intervention, and the study excluded patients who wanted a future pregnancy. ●

Beelen P, van den Brink MJ, Herman MC, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:187.e1-187.e10.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Counseling patients regarding treatment of HMB requires a realistic discussion about the risks of intervention and the expected outcomes. In addition to decreasing menstrual blood loss, treatment benefits of the LNG-IUS include a reversible form of intervention, minimal discomfort with placement in an office environment with an awake patient, and a reliable form of contraception. Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and progesterone-related adverse effects historically have been associated with LNG-IUS use and can lead to patient desires for device removal or additional intervention.

Similarly, in addition to endometrial ablation (EA) decreasing menstrual blood loss, its benefits include avoiding a hysterectomy with an outpatient procedure. Endometrial ablation does require a desire for no future pregnancies while using a reliable form of contraception. Risks of EA include failure to improve HMB or worsening pelvic pain that requires additional intervention, such as hysterectomy. Historically, clinical data suggest failure is more likely for women less than 40 years of age or with adenomyosis at the time of ablation.

Results of a long-term RCT by Beelen and colleagues may aid gynecologists in counseling patients on the risks and benefits of these 2 treatment options.

Details of the study

Performed between 2012 and 2016, this multicenter RCT evaluated primary intervention of the LNG-IUS in 132 women versus EA in 138 women. The women were older than age 34, did not want a future pregnancy, and had other etiologies of AUB eliminated.

The primary outcome was blood loss after 24 months as assessed with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score.

Secondary outcomes included controlled bleeding, defined as a PBAC score not exceeding 75 points; complications and reinterventions within 24 months; amenorrhea; spotting; dysmenorrhea; presence of clots; duration of blood loss; satisfaction with treatment; QoL; and sexual function.

The statistical null hypothesis of the trial was noninferiority of LNG-IUS treatment compared with EA treatment.

Results. Regarding the primary outcome, the mean PBAC score at 2 years was 64.8 for the LNG-IUS treatment group and 14.2 for the EA group. Importantly, however, the authors could not demonstrate noninferiority of the LNG-IUS compared with EA as a primary intervention for HMB.

For the secondary outcomes, there was no significant difference between groups, with both groups having a significant decrease in HMB at 3 months with PBAC scores that did not exceed 75 points: 60% in the LNG-IUS group and 83% in the EA group. In the LNG-IUS group, 35% of women received additional medical or surgical intervention versus 20% in the EA group.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its multicenter design, with 26 hospitals, and the long-term follow-up of 24 months. During the follow-up period, women were allowed to receive a reintervention as clinically indicated; thus, outcomes reflect results that are not from only a single designated intervention. For example, of the women in the LNG-IUS group, 34 received a surgical intervention, 31 (24%) underwent EA, and 9 (7%) underwent a hysterectomy. However, 6 of the 9 who underwent hysterectomy had a preceding EA, and these 6 women are not reported as surgical intervention of EA since the original designation for intervention was the LNG-IUS.

Notably, the patients and physicians were not blinded to the intervention, and the study excluded patients who wanted a future pregnancy. ●

Beelen P, van den Brink MJ, Herman MC, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:187.e1-187.e10.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Counseling patients regarding treatment of HMB requires a realistic discussion about the risks of intervention and the expected outcomes. In addition to decreasing menstrual blood loss, treatment benefits of the LNG-IUS include a reversible form of intervention, minimal discomfort with placement in an office environment with an awake patient, and a reliable form of contraception. Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and progesterone-related adverse effects historically have been associated with LNG-IUS use and can lead to patient desires for device removal or additional intervention.

Similarly, in addition to endometrial ablation (EA) decreasing menstrual blood loss, its benefits include avoiding a hysterectomy with an outpatient procedure. Endometrial ablation does require a desire for no future pregnancies while using a reliable form of contraception. Risks of EA include failure to improve HMB or worsening pelvic pain that requires additional intervention, such as hysterectomy. Historically, clinical data suggest failure is more likely for women less than 40 years of age or with adenomyosis at the time of ablation.

Results of a long-term RCT by Beelen and colleagues may aid gynecologists in counseling patients on the risks and benefits of these 2 treatment options.

Details of the study

Performed between 2012 and 2016, this multicenter RCT evaluated primary intervention of the LNG-IUS in 132 women versus EA in 138 women. The women were older than age 34, did not want a future pregnancy, and had other etiologies of AUB eliminated.

The primary outcome was blood loss after 24 months as assessed with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score.

Secondary outcomes included controlled bleeding, defined as a PBAC score not exceeding 75 points; complications and reinterventions within 24 months; amenorrhea; spotting; dysmenorrhea; presence of clots; duration of blood loss; satisfaction with treatment; QoL; and sexual function.

The statistical null hypothesis of the trial was noninferiority of LNG-IUS treatment compared with EA treatment.

Results. Regarding the primary outcome, the mean PBAC score at 2 years was 64.8 for the LNG-IUS treatment group and 14.2 for the EA group. Importantly, however, the authors could not demonstrate noninferiority of the LNG-IUS compared with EA as a primary intervention for HMB.

For the secondary outcomes, there was no significant difference between groups, with both groups having a significant decrease in HMB at 3 months with PBAC scores that did not exceed 75 points: 60% in the LNG-IUS group and 83% in the EA group. In the LNG-IUS group, 35% of women received additional medical or surgical intervention versus 20% in the EA group.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its multicenter design, with 26 hospitals, and the long-term follow-up of 24 months. During the follow-up period, women were allowed to receive a reintervention as clinically indicated; thus, outcomes reflect results that are not from only a single designated intervention. For example, of the women in the LNG-IUS group, 34 received a surgical intervention, 31 (24%) underwent EA, and 9 (7%) underwent a hysterectomy. However, 6 of the 9 who underwent hysterectomy had a preceding EA, and these 6 women are not reported as surgical intervention of EA since the original designation for intervention was the LNG-IUS.

Notably, the patients and physicians were not blinded to the intervention, and the study excluded patients who wanted a future pregnancy. ●

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Late one night in early February, Jen Gunter, MD, was scrolling online when she discovered a new “feminine hygiene” product being marketed for teen girls. The new vanilla clementine scented wipes and cleansers with confetti-colored packaging and a cute name (OMV!) irked Dr. Gunter because they are designed for girls to use to “freshen” their vaginal area.

Dr. Gunter, a San Francisco-based gynecologist and author of “The Vagina Bible,” has built a reputation as a fierce advocate for women’s health and debunker of pseudoscience. She has called out jade eggs and “detox pearls” and various other items that promise to improve the vagina but that she and other doctors warn could actually be harmful. And, in her view, this product is no different.

She fired off a tweet that became the first volley in a vociferous social media countercampaign: “Hey @vagisil going to call you out here for this predatory line of products aimed at teen girls. Why do you think teen vulvas need special cleaning? To be prepped for men? Because they are dirty. Anxiously awaiting your answer as are all my followers.”

Vagisil responded on Instagram that “we want to clarify any confusion or the underlying belief that OMV! was developed because there is something wrong with teens or that vulvas/vaginas are inherently dirty. That is not the case. All-Day Fresh Wash is an all-over body wash, that is safe, gentle, and pH-balanced for sensitive vulvar area skin.”

Dr. Gunter’s Feb. 4 tweet attracted more than 8,300 likes, 1,300 retweets and hundreds of comments, but that was just the beginning. Dr. Gunter has continued to tweet about the OMV! product line – and has inspired dozens of other gynecologists to join in.
 

‘Your vagina is fine’

Dr. Gunter and other gynecologists have long delivered the message that water alone is sufficient to cleanse the vulvar area and that the vagina itself is self-cleaning. Research into the vaginal microbiome reveals the role of lactobacilli in preventing urogenital diseases. “Disturbances in your vagina microbiome are hard to undo,” says Jocelyn Fitzgerald, MD, a urogynecologist and pelvic reconstructive surgeon at Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

To underscore that message, Dr. Fitzgerald recently tweeted in support of Dr. Gunter’s Twitter thread: “Honestly, the @vagisil marketing campaign is a brilliant one because using their products while your vagina is perfectly fine will destroy your microbiome, give you real Bacterial Vaginosis, and prompt you to buy more Vagisil. DON’T FALL FOR IT GIRLS YOUR VAGINA IS FINE.”

In an emailed response to this news organization, a Vagisil spokesperson said, “We follow industry best practices for testing and OMV! products are rigorously assessed for safety and quality. In addition, we work with respected, independent clinical labs that follow strict testing protocols, using board-certified gynecologists and dermatologists to test our products before launch.”

However, beyond the potential for irritation or misuse, the gynecologists zeroed in on the underlying message that girls would feel more confident if they used the wipes and cleanser. For example, the company suggested that teens could use the wipes to get rid of “period funk.”

“There is no such thing as period funk!” gynecologist Danielle Jones, MD, exclaimed in a video on YouTube, where she has a channel called Mama Doctor Jones – with 700,000 subscribers. “All you need is ordinary hygiene. Period funk is not a thing! And if you feel like something is going on because there’s an odor that is abnormal, you need to talk to your doctor.”

Adult women often use wipes and special cleansers in the vaginal area. An online survey of 1,435 Canadian women, published in BMC Women’s Health in 2018, found 42% had used vaginal wipes, 12% had used vaginal washes or cleansers – and 4% had used them internally.

When it launched OMV! in July, Vagisil said it had engaged 2,500 teens and their mothers in creating the product, which it said was “designed to meet the cleansing and care needs of a new generation of young women.”

That extension of a product most commonly used by adult women to teenagers – who often feel self-conscious about their bodies – is exactly what bothers Dr. Gunter. “BTW I am sorry I am subjecting you all to my @vagisil outrage, but preying on teens and amplifying patriarchal shame of normal bodily functions to sell an irritating product is not acceptable. I’m not stopping until they take that OMV! product line down everywhere,” she said in a Feb. 8 tweet that attracted more than 7,900 likes.
 

No ‘glow up’ needed

Dr. Gunter’s tweets tapped into collective anger over the shaming of women’s bodies. The OMV! marketing suggested that teens could get a “glow up” with the products.

“Your vulva doesn’t need a ‘glow up.’ It’s fine like it is. And if it’s not, talk to your doctor,” Dr. Jones said in her Feb. 8 video, which has had almost 350,000 views, with 28,000 likes and only 149 dislikes.

“They’re very clearly pathologizing normal physiology,” Dr. Jones says. “They’re creating language that makes people feel as though their normal bodily functions have to be somehow fixed or changed.”

Dr. Gunter says she specifically wanted to prevent Vagisil from leveraging social media to influence teen girls. With her stream of tweets and support from colleagues around the country, she has sparked a prolonged online conversation.

“I am encouraged by the strong response on social media from both other enraged ob.gyns. and health care professionals as well the response from a lot of women and men,” Dr. Gunter said in an interview. “We have effectively blocked [Vagisil] from using social media.”

In its response to this news organization, Vagisil noted, “We are a brand run by women with daughters of our own.” While defending the products, Vagisil acknowledged the criticisms: “We are always listening to our consumers and our expert partners so that we continuously evolve. We appreciate the perspective that our language choice surrounding periods may perpetuate an old idea and have already begun to make changes to address this.”

Dr. Gunter says she plans to stay on topic. “Given the number of people outraged, I suspect if they venture out on social media again the reaction will be swift,” she said. “Hopefully we have made OMV! toxic for influencers as well.”

In fact, she’s ready to take on “the entire predatory feminine hygiene market. I’m sick of their false claims about balancing pH and not-so-subtle suggestions that vaginas and vulvas and menstruation stink. These products cause psychological harm as well as physical harm from their irritants,” she said.

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

Late one night in early February, Jen Gunter, MD, was scrolling online when she discovered a new “feminine hygiene” product being marketed for teen girls. The new vanilla clementine scented wipes and cleansers with confetti-colored packaging and a cute name (OMV!) irked Dr. Gunter because they are designed for girls to use to “freshen” their vaginal area.

Dr. Gunter, a San Francisco-based gynecologist and author of “The Vagina Bible,” has built a reputation as a fierce advocate for women’s health and debunker of pseudoscience. She has called out jade eggs and “detox pearls” and various other items that promise to improve the vagina but that she and other doctors warn could actually be harmful. And, in her view, this product is no different.

She fired off a tweet that became the first volley in a vociferous social media countercampaign: “Hey @vagisil going to call you out here for this predatory line of products aimed at teen girls. Why do you think teen vulvas need special cleaning? To be prepped for men? Because they are dirty. Anxiously awaiting your answer as are all my followers.”

Vagisil responded on Instagram that “we want to clarify any confusion or the underlying belief that OMV! was developed because there is something wrong with teens or that vulvas/vaginas are inherently dirty. That is not the case. All-Day Fresh Wash is an all-over body wash, that is safe, gentle, and pH-balanced for sensitive vulvar area skin.”

Dr. Gunter’s Feb. 4 tweet attracted more than 8,300 likes, 1,300 retweets and hundreds of comments, but that was just the beginning. Dr. Gunter has continued to tweet about the OMV! product line – and has inspired dozens of other gynecologists to join in.
 

‘Your vagina is fine’

Dr. Gunter and other gynecologists have long delivered the message that water alone is sufficient to cleanse the vulvar area and that the vagina itself is self-cleaning. Research into the vaginal microbiome reveals the role of lactobacilli in preventing urogenital diseases. “Disturbances in your vagina microbiome are hard to undo,” says Jocelyn Fitzgerald, MD, a urogynecologist and pelvic reconstructive surgeon at Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

To underscore that message, Dr. Fitzgerald recently tweeted in support of Dr. Gunter’s Twitter thread: “Honestly, the @vagisil marketing campaign is a brilliant one because using their products while your vagina is perfectly fine will destroy your microbiome, give you real Bacterial Vaginosis, and prompt you to buy more Vagisil. DON’T FALL FOR IT GIRLS YOUR VAGINA IS FINE.”

In an emailed response to this news organization, a Vagisil spokesperson said, “We follow industry best practices for testing and OMV! products are rigorously assessed for safety and quality. In addition, we work with respected, independent clinical labs that follow strict testing protocols, using board-certified gynecologists and dermatologists to test our products before launch.”

However, beyond the potential for irritation or misuse, the gynecologists zeroed in on the underlying message that girls would feel more confident if they used the wipes and cleanser. For example, the company suggested that teens could use the wipes to get rid of “period funk.”

“There is no such thing as period funk!” gynecologist Danielle Jones, MD, exclaimed in a video on YouTube, where she has a channel called Mama Doctor Jones – with 700,000 subscribers. “All you need is ordinary hygiene. Period funk is not a thing! And if you feel like something is going on because there’s an odor that is abnormal, you need to talk to your doctor.”

Adult women often use wipes and special cleansers in the vaginal area. An online survey of 1,435 Canadian women, published in BMC Women’s Health in 2018, found 42% had used vaginal wipes, 12% had used vaginal washes or cleansers – and 4% had used them internally.

When it launched OMV! in July, Vagisil said it had engaged 2,500 teens and their mothers in creating the product, which it said was “designed to meet the cleansing and care needs of a new generation of young women.”

That extension of a product most commonly used by adult women to teenagers – who often feel self-conscious about their bodies – is exactly what bothers Dr. Gunter. “BTW I am sorry I am subjecting you all to my @vagisil outrage, but preying on teens and amplifying patriarchal shame of normal bodily functions to sell an irritating product is not acceptable. I’m not stopping until they take that OMV! product line down everywhere,” she said in a Feb. 8 tweet that attracted more than 7,900 likes.
 

No ‘glow up’ needed

Dr. Gunter’s tweets tapped into collective anger over the shaming of women’s bodies. The OMV! marketing suggested that teens could get a “glow up” with the products.

“Your vulva doesn’t need a ‘glow up.’ It’s fine like it is. And if it’s not, talk to your doctor,” Dr. Jones said in her Feb. 8 video, which has had almost 350,000 views, with 28,000 likes and only 149 dislikes.

“They’re very clearly pathologizing normal physiology,” Dr. Jones says. “They’re creating language that makes people feel as though their normal bodily functions have to be somehow fixed or changed.”

Dr. Gunter says she specifically wanted to prevent Vagisil from leveraging social media to influence teen girls. With her stream of tweets and support from colleagues around the country, she has sparked a prolonged online conversation.

“I am encouraged by the strong response on social media from both other enraged ob.gyns. and health care professionals as well the response from a lot of women and men,” Dr. Gunter said in an interview. “We have effectively blocked [Vagisil] from using social media.”

In its response to this news organization, Vagisil noted, “We are a brand run by women with daughters of our own.” While defending the products, Vagisil acknowledged the criticisms: “We are always listening to our consumers and our expert partners so that we continuously evolve. We appreciate the perspective that our language choice surrounding periods may perpetuate an old idea and have already begun to make changes to address this.”

Dr. Gunter says she plans to stay on topic. “Given the number of people outraged, I suspect if they venture out on social media again the reaction will be swift,” she said. “Hopefully we have made OMV! toxic for influencers as well.”

In fact, she’s ready to take on “the entire predatory feminine hygiene market. I’m sick of their false claims about balancing pH and not-so-subtle suggestions that vaginas and vulvas and menstruation stink. These products cause psychological harm as well as physical harm from their irritants,” she said.

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

Late one night in early February, Jen Gunter, MD, was scrolling online when she discovered a new “feminine hygiene” product being marketed for teen girls. The new vanilla clementine scented wipes and cleansers with confetti-colored packaging and a cute name (OMV!) irked Dr. Gunter because they are designed for girls to use to “freshen” their vaginal area.

Dr. Gunter, a San Francisco-based gynecologist and author of “The Vagina Bible,” has built a reputation as a fierce advocate for women’s health and debunker of pseudoscience. She has called out jade eggs and “detox pearls” and various other items that promise to improve the vagina but that she and other doctors warn could actually be harmful. And, in her view, this product is no different.

She fired off a tweet that became the first volley in a vociferous social media countercampaign: “Hey @vagisil going to call you out here for this predatory line of products aimed at teen girls. Why do you think teen vulvas need special cleaning? To be prepped for men? Because they are dirty. Anxiously awaiting your answer as are all my followers.”

Vagisil responded on Instagram that “we want to clarify any confusion or the underlying belief that OMV! was developed because there is something wrong with teens or that vulvas/vaginas are inherently dirty. That is not the case. All-Day Fresh Wash is an all-over body wash, that is safe, gentle, and pH-balanced for sensitive vulvar area skin.”

Dr. Gunter’s Feb. 4 tweet attracted more than 8,300 likes, 1,300 retweets and hundreds of comments, but that was just the beginning. Dr. Gunter has continued to tweet about the OMV! product line – and has inspired dozens of other gynecologists to join in.
 

‘Your vagina is fine’

Dr. Gunter and other gynecologists have long delivered the message that water alone is sufficient to cleanse the vulvar area and that the vagina itself is self-cleaning. Research into the vaginal microbiome reveals the role of lactobacilli in preventing urogenital diseases. “Disturbances in your vagina microbiome are hard to undo,” says Jocelyn Fitzgerald, MD, a urogynecologist and pelvic reconstructive surgeon at Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

To underscore that message, Dr. Fitzgerald recently tweeted in support of Dr. Gunter’s Twitter thread: “Honestly, the @vagisil marketing campaign is a brilliant one because using their products while your vagina is perfectly fine will destroy your microbiome, give you real Bacterial Vaginosis, and prompt you to buy more Vagisil. DON’T FALL FOR IT GIRLS YOUR VAGINA IS FINE.”

In an emailed response to this news organization, a Vagisil spokesperson said, “We follow industry best practices for testing and OMV! products are rigorously assessed for safety and quality. In addition, we work with respected, independent clinical labs that follow strict testing protocols, using board-certified gynecologists and dermatologists to test our products before launch.”

However, beyond the potential for irritation or misuse, the gynecologists zeroed in on the underlying message that girls would feel more confident if they used the wipes and cleanser. For example, the company suggested that teens could use the wipes to get rid of “period funk.”

“There is no such thing as period funk!” gynecologist Danielle Jones, MD, exclaimed in a video on YouTube, where she has a channel called Mama Doctor Jones – with 700,000 subscribers. “All you need is ordinary hygiene. Period funk is not a thing! And if you feel like something is going on because there’s an odor that is abnormal, you need to talk to your doctor.”

Adult women often use wipes and special cleansers in the vaginal area. An online survey of 1,435 Canadian women, published in BMC Women’s Health in 2018, found 42% had used vaginal wipes, 12% had used vaginal washes or cleansers – and 4% had used them internally.

When it launched OMV! in July, Vagisil said it had engaged 2,500 teens and their mothers in creating the product, which it said was “designed to meet the cleansing and care needs of a new generation of young women.”

That extension of a product most commonly used by adult women to teenagers – who often feel self-conscious about their bodies – is exactly what bothers Dr. Gunter. “BTW I am sorry I am subjecting you all to my @vagisil outrage, but preying on teens and amplifying patriarchal shame of normal bodily functions to sell an irritating product is not acceptable. I’m not stopping until they take that OMV! product line down everywhere,” she said in a Feb. 8 tweet that attracted more than 7,900 likes.
 

No ‘glow up’ needed

Dr. Gunter’s tweets tapped into collective anger over the shaming of women’s bodies. The OMV! marketing suggested that teens could get a “glow up” with the products.

“Your vulva doesn’t need a ‘glow up.’ It’s fine like it is. And if it’s not, talk to your doctor,” Dr. Jones said in her Feb. 8 video, which has had almost 350,000 views, with 28,000 likes and only 149 dislikes.

“They’re very clearly pathologizing normal physiology,” Dr. Jones says. “They’re creating language that makes people feel as though their normal bodily functions have to be somehow fixed or changed.”

Dr. Gunter says she specifically wanted to prevent Vagisil from leveraging social media to influence teen girls. With her stream of tweets and support from colleagues around the country, she has sparked a prolonged online conversation.

“I am encouraged by the strong response on social media from both other enraged ob.gyns. and health care professionals as well the response from a lot of women and men,” Dr. Gunter said in an interview. “We have effectively blocked [Vagisil] from using social media.”

In its response to this news organization, Vagisil noted, “We are a brand run by women with daughters of our own.” While defending the products, Vagisil acknowledged the criticisms: “We are always listening to our consumers and our expert partners so that we continuously evolve. We appreciate the perspective that our language choice surrounding periods may perpetuate an old idea and have already begun to make changes to address this.”

Dr. Gunter says she plans to stay on topic. “Given the number of people outraged, I suspect if they venture out on social media again the reaction will be swift,” she said. “Hopefully we have made OMV! toxic for influencers as well.”

In fact, she’s ready to take on “the entire predatory feminine hygiene market. I’m sick of their false claims about balancing pH and not-so-subtle suggestions that vaginas and vulvas and menstruation stink. These products cause psychological harm as well as physical harm from their irritants,” she said.

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

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●