Women's Health

For many adolescents, the first visit to a gynecologist can be intimidating. The prospect of meeting a new doctor who will ask prying, deeply personal questions about sex and menstruation is scary. And, in all likelihood, a parent, older sibling, or friend has warned them about the notorious pelvic exam.

The exact timing of when adolescent patients should start seeing a gynecologist varies based on when a patient starts puberty. Primary care physicians and pediatricians can help teens transition by referring patients to an adolescent-friendly practice and clearing up some of the misconceptions that surround the first gynecology visit. Gynecologists, on the other side of the referral, can help patients transition by guaranteeing confidentiality and creating a safe space for young patients.

This news organization interviewed three experts in adolescent health about when teens should start having their gynecological needs addressed and how their physicians can help them undergo that transition.
 

Age-appropriate care

“Most people get very limited information about their reproductive health,” said Anne-Marie E. Amies Oelschlager, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Seattle Children’s, Seattle, and a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clinical consensus committee on gynecology.

Official guidelines from ACOG call for the initial reproductive health visit to take place between the ages of 13 and 15 years. The exact age may vary, however, depending on the specific needs of the patient.

For example, some patients begin menstruating early, at age 9 or 10, said Mary Romano, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, Tenn. Pediatricians who are uncomfortable educating young patients about menstruation should refer the patient to a gynecologist or a pediatric gynecologist for whom such discussions are routine.

If a patient does not have a menstrual cycle by age 14 or 15, that also should be addressed by a family physician or gynecologist, Dr. Romano added.

“The importance here is addressing the reproductive health of the teen starting really at the age of 10 or 12, or once puberty starts,” said Patricia S. Huguelet, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. In those early visits, the physician can provide “anticipatory guidance,” counseling the teen on what is normal in terms of menstruation, sex, and relationships, and addressing what is not, she said.

Ideally, patients who were designated female at birth but now identify as male or nonbinary will meet with a gynecologist early on in the gender affirmation process and a gynecologist will continue to consult as part of the patient’s interdisciplinary care team, added Dr. Romano, who counsels LGBTQ+ youth as part of her practice. A gynecologist may support these patients in myriad ways, including helping those who are considering or using puberty blockers and providing reproductive and health education to patients in a way that is sensitive to the patient’s gender identity.
 

Patient referrals

Some pediatricians and family practice physicians may be talking with their patients about topics such as menstrual cycles and contraception. But those who are uncomfortable asking adolescent patients about their reproductive and sexual health should refer them to a gynecologist or specialist in adolescent medicine, Dr. Romano advised.

“The biggest benefit I’ve noticed is often [patients] come from a pediatrician or family medicine provider and they often appreciate the opportunity to talk to a doctor they haven’t met before about the more personal questions they may have,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Referring adolescents to a specialist who has either trained in adolescent medicine or has experience treating that age group has benefits, Dr. Romano said. Clinicians with that experience understand adolescents are not “mini-adults” but have unique developmental and medical issues. How to counsel and educate them carries unique challenges, she said.

For example, heavy menstrual bleeding is a leading reason a patient – either an adult or an adolescent – presents to a gynecologist, Dr. Huguelet said. But the pathology differs vastly for those two age groups. For patients in their 30s and 40s, polyps and fibroids are common problems associated with heavy bleeding. Those conditions are rare in adolescents, whereas bleeding disorders are common, she said.

Most patients will continue to see their pediatricians and primary care providers for other issues. And in some areas, gynecologists can reinforce advice from pediatricians, such as encouraging patients to get the HPV vaccine, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.
 

Common misconceptions

Primary care physicians can also dispel common misconceptions teens – and their parents – have about gynecology. Some parents may believe that certain methods of birth control cause cancer or infertility, have concerns about the HPV vaccine, or think hormonal therapies are harmful, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. But the biggest misconception involves the infamous pelvic exam.

“Lots of patients assume that every time they go to the gynecologist they are going to have a pelvic exam,” she said. “When I say, ‘We don’t have to do that,’ they are so relieved.”

Guidelines have changed since the parents of today’s teens were going to the gynecologist for the first time. Many patients now do not need an initial Pap smear until age 25, following a recent guideline change by the American Cancer Society. (ACOG is considering adopting the same stance but still recommends screening start at 21.) “Most patients do not need an exam, even when it comes to sexual health and screening [for sexually transmitted infections], that can be done without an exam,” Dr. Huguelet said.
 

Confidentiality and comfort

On the other side of the referral, gynecologists should follow several best practices to treat adolescent patients. Arguably the most important part of the initial gynecologic visit is to give patients the option of one-on-one time with the physician with no parent in the room. During that time, the physician should make it clear that what they discuss is confidential and will not be shared with their parent or guardian, Dr. Huguelet said. Patients should also have the option of having a friend or another nonparent individual in the room with them during this one-on-one time with the physician, particularly if the patient does not feel comfortable discussing sensitive subjects completely on her own.

Adolescents receive better care, disclose more, and perceive they are getting better care when the process is confidential, Dr. Romano said. Confidentiality does have limits, however, which physicians should also make sure their patients understand, according to the ACOG guidelines for the initial reproductive visit. These limitations can vary by state depending on issues related to mandatory reporting, insurance billing, and legal requirements of patient notifications of specific services such as abortion.

The use of electronic medical records has raised additional challenges when it comes to communicating privately with adolescent patients, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. In her practice, she tries to ensure the adolescent is the one with the login information for their records. If not, her office will have the patient’s cell number to text or call securely.

“We feel strongly adolescents should be able to access reproductive health care, mental health care, and care for substance abuse disorders without parental notification,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Telehealth visits can also be helpful for adolescents coming to gynecology for the first time. And taking the time to establish a rapport with patients at the start of the visit is key, Dr. Huguelet said. By directing questions to the adolescent patient rather than the parent, Dr. Huguelet said, the physician demonstrates that the teen’s treatment needs come first.

ACOG has guidelines on other steps gynecology practices, including those that see both adults and teens, can take to make their offices and visits adolescent-friendly. These steps include asking patients about their preferred names and pronouns at the start of the visit or as part of the initial intake form, training office staff to be comfortable with issues related to adolescent sexuality and gender and sexual diversity among patients, providing a place for teens to wait separately from obstetrics patients, and having age-appropriate literature on hand for adolescents to learn about reproductive health.

After that first reproductive health visit, gynecologists and primary care providers should partner to ensure the whole health of their patients is being addressed, Dr. Huguelet said.

“Collaboration is always going to better serve patients in any area,” said Dr. Romano, “and certainly this area is no different.”

Dr. Amies Oelschlager, Dr. Romano, and Dr. Huguelet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For many adolescents, the first visit to a gynecologist can be intimidating. The prospect of meeting a new doctor who will ask prying, deeply personal questions about sex and menstruation is scary. And, in all likelihood, a parent, older sibling, or friend has warned them about the notorious pelvic exam.

The exact timing of when adolescent patients should start seeing a gynecologist varies based on when a patient starts puberty. Primary care physicians and pediatricians can help teens transition by referring patients to an adolescent-friendly practice and clearing up some of the misconceptions that surround the first gynecology visit. Gynecologists, on the other side of the referral, can help patients transition by guaranteeing confidentiality and creating a safe space for young patients.

This news organization interviewed three experts in adolescent health about when teens should start having their gynecological needs addressed and how their physicians can help them undergo that transition.
 

Age-appropriate care

“Most people get very limited information about their reproductive health,” said Anne-Marie E. Amies Oelschlager, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Seattle Children’s, Seattle, and a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clinical consensus committee on gynecology.

Official guidelines from ACOG call for the initial reproductive health visit to take place between the ages of 13 and 15 years. The exact age may vary, however, depending on the specific needs of the patient.

For example, some patients begin menstruating early, at age 9 or 10, said Mary Romano, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, Tenn. Pediatricians who are uncomfortable educating young patients about menstruation should refer the patient to a gynecologist or a pediatric gynecologist for whom such discussions are routine.

If a patient does not have a menstrual cycle by age 14 or 15, that also should be addressed by a family physician or gynecologist, Dr. Romano added.

“The importance here is addressing the reproductive health of the teen starting really at the age of 10 or 12, or once puberty starts,” said Patricia S. Huguelet, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. In those early visits, the physician can provide “anticipatory guidance,” counseling the teen on what is normal in terms of menstruation, sex, and relationships, and addressing what is not, she said.

Ideally, patients who were designated female at birth but now identify as male or nonbinary will meet with a gynecologist early on in the gender affirmation process and a gynecologist will continue to consult as part of the patient’s interdisciplinary care team, added Dr. Romano, who counsels LGBTQ+ youth as part of her practice. A gynecologist may support these patients in myriad ways, including helping those who are considering or using puberty blockers and providing reproductive and health education to patients in a way that is sensitive to the patient’s gender identity.
 

Patient referrals

Some pediatricians and family practice physicians may be talking with their patients about topics such as menstrual cycles and contraception. But those who are uncomfortable asking adolescent patients about their reproductive and sexual health should refer them to a gynecologist or specialist in adolescent medicine, Dr. Romano advised.

“The biggest benefit I’ve noticed is often [patients] come from a pediatrician or family medicine provider and they often appreciate the opportunity to talk to a doctor they haven’t met before about the more personal questions they may have,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Referring adolescents to a specialist who has either trained in adolescent medicine or has experience treating that age group has benefits, Dr. Romano said. Clinicians with that experience understand adolescents are not “mini-adults” but have unique developmental and medical issues. How to counsel and educate them carries unique challenges, she said.

For example, heavy menstrual bleeding is a leading reason a patient – either an adult or an adolescent – presents to a gynecologist, Dr. Huguelet said. But the pathology differs vastly for those two age groups. For patients in their 30s and 40s, polyps and fibroids are common problems associated with heavy bleeding. Those conditions are rare in adolescents, whereas bleeding disorders are common, she said.

Most patients will continue to see their pediatricians and primary care providers for other issues. And in some areas, gynecologists can reinforce advice from pediatricians, such as encouraging patients to get the HPV vaccine, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.
 

Common misconceptions

Primary care physicians can also dispel common misconceptions teens – and their parents – have about gynecology. Some parents may believe that certain methods of birth control cause cancer or infertility, have concerns about the HPV vaccine, or think hormonal therapies are harmful, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. But the biggest misconception involves the infamous pelvic exam.

“Lots of patients assume that every time they go to the gynecologist they are going to have a pelvic exam,” she said. “When I say, ‘We don’t have to do that,’ they are so relieved.”

Guidelines have changed since the parents of today’s teens were going to the gynecologist for the first time. Many patients now do not need an initial Pap smear until age 25, following a recent guideline change by the American Cancer Society. (ACOG is considering adopting the same stance but still recommends screening start at 21.) “Most patients do not need an exam, even when it comes to sexual health and screening [for sexually transmitted infections], that can be done without an exam,” Dr. Huguelet said.
 

Confidentiality and comfort

On the other side of the referral, gynecologists should follow several best practices to treat adolescent patients. Arguably the most important part of the initial gynecologic visit is to give patients the option of one-on-one time with the physician with no parent in the room. During that time, the physician should make it clear that what they discuss is confidential and will not be shared with their parent or guardian, Dr. Huguelet said. Patients should also have the option of having a friend or another nonparent individual in the room with them during this one-on-one time with the physician, particularly if the patient does not feel comfortable discussing sensitive subjects completely on her own.

Adolescents receive better care, disclose more, and perceive they are getting better care when the process is confidential, Dr. Romano said. Confidentiality does have limits, however, which physicians should also make sure their patients understand, according to the ACOG guidelines for the initial reproductive visit. These limitations can vary by state depending on issues related to mandatory reporting, insurance billing, and legal requirements of patient notifications of specific services such as abortion.

The use of electronic medical records has raised additional challenges when it comes to communicating privately with adolescent patients, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. In her practice, she tries to ensure the adolescent is the one with the login information for their records. If not, her office will have the patient’s cell number to text or call securely.

“We feel strongly adolescents should be able to access reproductive health care, mental health care, and care for substance abuse disorders without parental notification,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Telehealth visits can also be helpful for adolescents coming to gynecology for the first time. And taking the time to establish a rapport with patients at the start of the visit is key, Dr. Huguelet said. By directing questions to the adolescent patient rather than the parent, Dr. Huguelet said, the physician demonstrates that the teen’s treatment needs come first.

ACOG has guidelines on other steps gynecology practices, including those that see both adults and teens, can take to make their offices and visits adolescent-friendly. These steps include asking patients about their preferred names and pronouns at the start of the visit or as part of the initial intake form, training office staff to be comfortable with issues related to adolescent sexuality and gender and sexual diversity among patients, providing a place for teens to wait separately from obstetrics patients, and having age-appropriate literature on hand for adolescents to learn about reproductive health.

After that first reproductive health visit, gynecologists and primary care providers should partner to ensure the whole health of their patients is being addressed, Dr. Huguelet said.

“Collaboration is always going to better serve patients in any area,” said Dr. Romano, “and certainly this area is no different.”

Dr. Amies Oelschlager, Dr. Romano, and Dr. Huguelet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For many adolescents, the first visit to a gynecologist can be intimidating. The prospect of meeting a new doctor who will ask prying, deeply personal questions about sex and menstruation is scary. And, in all likelihood, a parent, older sibling, or friend has warned them about the notorious pelvic exam.

The exact timing of when adolescent patients should start seeing a gynecologist varies based on when a patient starts puberty. Primary care physicians and pediatricians can help teens transition by referring patients to an adolescent-friendly practice and clearing up some of the misconceptions that surround the first gynecology visit. Gynecologists, on the other side of the referral, can help patients transition by guaranteeing confidentiality and creating a safe space for young patients.

This news organization interviewed three experts in adolescent health about when teens should start having their gynecological needs addressed and how their physicians can help them undergo that transition.
 

Age-appropriate care

“Most people get very limited information about their reproductive health,” said Anne-Marie E. Amies Oelschlager, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Seattle Children’s, Seattle, and a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clinical consensus committee on gynecology.

Official guidelines from ACOG call for the initial reproductive health visit to take place between the ages of 13 and 15 years. The exact age may vary, however, depending on the specific needs of the patient.

For example, some patients begin menstruating early, at age 9 or 10, said Mary Romano, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, Tenn. Pediatricians who are uncomfortable educating young patients about menstruation should refer the patient to a gynecologist or a pediatric gynecologist for whom such discussions are routine.

If a patient does not have a menstrual cycle by age 14 or 15, that also should be addressed by a family physician or gynecologist, Dr. Romano added.

“The importance here is addressing the reproductive health of the teen starting really at the age of 10 or 12, or once puberty starts,” said Patricia S. Huguelet, MD, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. In those early visits, the physician can provide “anticipatory guidance,” counseling the teen on what is normal in terms of menstruation, sex, and relationships, and addressing what is not, she said.

Ideally, patients who were designated female at birth but now identify as male or nonbinary will meet with a gynecologist early on in the gender affirmation process and a gynecologist will continue to consult as part of the patient’s interdisciplinary care team, added Dr. Romano, who counsels LGBTQ+ youth as part of her practice. A gynecologist may support these patients in myriad ways, including helping those who are considering or using puberty blockers and providing reproductive and health education to patients in a way that is sensitive to the patient’s gender identity.
 

Patient referrals

Some pediatricians and family practice physicians may be talking with their patients about topics such as menstrual cycles and contraception. But those who are uncomfortable asking adolescent patients about their reproductive and sexual health should refer them to a gynecologist or specialist in adolescent medicine, Dr. Romano advised.

“The biggest benefit I’ve noticed is often [patients] come from a pediatrician or family medicine provider and they often appreciate the opportunity to talk to a doctor they haven’t met before about the more personal questions they may have,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Referring adolescents to a specialist who has either trained in adolescent medicine or has experience treating that age group has benefits, Dr. Romano said. Clinicians with that experience understand adolescents are not “mini-adults” but have unique developmental and medical issues. How to counsel and educate them carries unique challenges, she said.

For example, heavy menstrual bleeding is a leading reason a patient – either an adult or an adolescent – presents to a gynecologist, Dr. Huguelet said. But the pathology differs vastly for those two age groups. For patients in their 30s and 40s, polyps and fibroids are common problems associated with heavy bleeding. Those conditions are rare in adolescents, whereas bleeding disorders are common, she said.

Most patients will continue to see their pediatricians and primary care providers for other issues. And in some areas, gynecologists can reinforce advice from pediatricians, such as encouraging patients to get the HPV vaccine, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.
 

Common misconceptions

Primary care physicians can also dispel common misconceptions teens – and their parents – have about gynecology. Some parents may believe that certain methods of birth control cause cancer or infertility, have concerns about the HPV vaccine, or think hormonal therapies are harmful, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. But the biggest misconception involves the infamous pelvic exam.

“Lots of patients assume that every time they go to the gynecologist they are going to have a pelvic exam,” she said. “When I say, ‘We don’t have to do that,’ they are so relieved.”

Guidelines have changed since the parents of today’s teens were going to the gynecologist for the first time. Many patients now do not need an initial Pap smear until age 25, following a recent guideline change by the American Cancer Society. (ACOG is considering adopting the same stance but still recommends screening start at 21.) “Most patients do not need an exam, even when it comes to sexual health and screening [for sexually transmitted infections], that can be done without an exam,” Dr. Huguelet said.
 

Confidentiality and comfort

On the other side of the referral, gynecologists should follow several best practices to treat adolescent patients. Arguably the most important part of the initial gynecologic visit is to give patients the option of one-on-one time with the physician with no parent in the room. During that time, the physician should make it clear that what they discuss is confidential and will not be shared with their parent or guardian, Dr. Huguelet said. Patients should also have the option of having a friend or another nonparent individual in the room with them during this one-on-one time with the physician, particularly if the patient does not feel comfortable discussing sensitive subjects completely on her own.

Adolescents receive better care, disclose more, and perceive they are getting better care when the process is confidential, Dr. Romano said. Confidentiality does have limits, however, which physicians should also make sure their patients understand, according to the ACOG guidelines for the initial reproductive visit. These limitations can vary by state depending on issues related to mandatory reporting, insurance billing, and legal requirements of patient notifications of specific services such as abortion.

The use of electronic medical records has raised additional challenges when it comes to communicating privately with adolescent patients, Dr. Amies Oelschlager said. In her practice, she tries to ensure the adolescent is the one with the login information for their records. If not, her office will have the patient’s cell number to text or call securely.

“We feel strongly adolescents should be able to access reproductive health care, mental health care, and care for substance abuse disorders without parental notification,” Dr. Amies Oelschlager said.

Telehealth visits can also be helpful for adolescents coming to gynecology for the first time. And taking the time to establish a rapport with patients at the start of the visit is key, Dr. Huguelet said. By directing questions to the adolescent patient rather than the parent, Dr. Huguelet said, the physician demonstrates that the teen’s treatment needs come first.

ACOG has guidelines on other steps gynecology practices, including those that see both adults and teens, can take to make their offices and visits adolescent-friendly. These steps include asking patients about their preferred names and pronouns at the start of the visit or as part of the initial intake form, training office staff to be comfortable with issues related to adolescent sexuality and gender and sexual diversity among patients, providing a place for teens to wait separately from obstetrics patients, and having age-appropriate literature on hand for adolescents to learn about reproductive health.

After that first reproductive health visit, gynecologists and primary care providers should partner to ensure the whole health of their patients is being addressed, Dr. Huguelet said.

“Collaboration is always going to better serve patients in any area,” said Dr. Romano, “and certainly this area is no different.”

Dr. Amies Oelschlager, Dr. Romano, and Dr. Huguelet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Maria Trent, MD, MPH, was studying ways clinicians can leverage technology to care for adolescents years before COVID-19 exposed the challenges and advantages of telehealth.

Dr. Trent, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has long believed that the phones in her patients’ pockets have the potential to improve the sexual health of youth. The pandemic has only made that view stronger.

“They’re a generation that’s really wired and online,” Dr. Trent told this news organization. “I think that we can meet them in that space.”

Her research has incorporated texting, apps, and videos. Out of necessity, technology increasingly became part of patient care during the pandemic. “We had to stretch our ability to do some basic triage and assessments of patients online,” Dr. Trent said.

Even when clinics are closed, doctors might be able to provide initial care remotely, such as writing prescriptions to manage symptoms or directing patients to a lab for testing.

Telemedicine could allow a clinician to guide a teenager who thinks they might be pregnant to take a store-bought test and avoid possible exposure to COVID-19 in the ED, for instance.

But doctors have concerns about the legal and practical limits of privacy and confidentiality. Who else is at home listening to a phone conversation? Are parents accessing the patient’s online portal? Will parents receive an explanation of benefits that lists testing for a sexually transmitted infection, or see a testing kit that is delivered to their home?

When a young patient needs in-person care, transportation can be a barrier. And then there’s the matter of clinicians being able to bill for telehealth services.

Practices are learning how to navigate these issues, and relevant laws vary by state.

“I think this is going to become part of standard practice,” Dr. Trent said. “I think we have to do the hard work to make sure that it’s safe, that it’s accessible, and that it is actually improving care.”
 

Texts, apps, videos

In one early study, Dr. Trent and colleagues found that showing adolescents with pelvic inflammatory disease a 6-minute video may improve treatment rates for their sexual partners.

Another study provided preliminary evidence that text messaging support might improve clinic attendance for moderately long-acting reversible contraception.

A third trial showed that adolescents and young adults with pelvic inflammatory disease who were randomly assigned to receive text-message prompts to take their medications and provide information about the doses they consumed had greater decreases in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis infections, compared with patients who received standard care.

Dr. Trent and coinvestigators are assessing a technology-based intervention for youth with HIV, in which patients can use an app to submit videos of themselves taking antiretroviral therapy and report any side effects. The technology provides a way to monitor patients remotely and support them between visits, she said.
 

Will pandemic-driven options remain?

In 2020, Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute in New York, and coauthors discussed the possible ramifications of the pandemic on the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents and young adults.

If telemedicine options driven by COVID-19 are here to stay, adolescents and young adults could be “the age group most likely to continue that approach rather than returning to traditional in-person visits,” the researchers wrote. “Innovations in health care service provision, such as use of telemedicine and obtaining contraceptives and STI testing by mail, will help expand access to [sexual and reproductive health] care for young people.”

At the 2021 annual conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Trent described telehealth as a viable way to provide sexual and reproductive health care to adolescents and young adults, including anticipatory guidance, contraception counseling, coordination of follow-up care and testing, and connecting patients to resources.

Her presentation cited several websites that can help patients receive testing for STIs, including Yes Means Test, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s GetTested page, and I Want the Kit. Planned Parenthood has telehealth options, and the Kaiser Family Foundation compiled information about 26 online platforms that were providing contraception or STI services.
 

Who else is in the room?

“There’s only so much time in the day and so many patients you can see, regardless of whether you have telehealth or not,” said David L. Bell, MD, MPH, president of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and a coauthor of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health paper. In addition, “you never know who else is in the room” with the patient on the other end, added Dr. Bell, a professor of population and family health and pediatrics at the Columbia University Medical Center and medical director of the Young Men’s Clinic, both in New York.

In some respects, young patients may not be able to participate in telehealth visits the same way they would in a medical office, Dr. Trent acknowledged. Encouraging the use of headphones is one way to help protect confidentiality when talking with patients who are at home and might not be alone.

But if patients are able to find a private space for remote visits, they might be more open than usual. In that way, telemedicine could provide additional opportunities to address issues like substance use disorders and mental health, as well, she said.

“Then, if they need something, we have to problem solve,” Dr. Trent said. Next steps may involve engaging a parent or getting the patient to a lab or the clinic.
 

Sex ed may be lacking

The Perspectives article also raised concerns that the pandemic might exacerbate shortcomings in sex education, which already may have been lacking.

“Before the pandemic, schools were a key source of formal sex education for young people,” the authors wrote. “Sex education, which was already limited in many areas of the country, has likely not been included in the national shift to online learning. Even when in-person schooling resumes, missed sex education instruction is unlikely to be made up, given the modest attention it received prior to the pandemic.”

A recently published study in the Journal of Adolescent Health indicates that American teenagers currently receive less formal sex education than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” inequities by race.

Researchers surveyed adolescents about what they had learned about topics such as how to say no to sex, methods of birth control and where to get them, and STIs.

Dr. Lindberg and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, professor and chair of the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Newark, N.J., conducted the analysis.

“Pediatricians and other health care providers that work with children and adolescents have a critical role to play in providing information about sexuality to both the patients and to the parents,” said Dr. Kantor, who also coauthored the Perspectives article with Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Bell. The new research “shows that doctors play an even more critical role, because they can’t assume that their patients are going to get the information that they need in a timely way from schools.”

By age 15, 21% of girls and 20% of boys have had sexual intercourse at least once, according to data from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth. By age 17, the percentages were 53% of girls and 48% of boys. By age 20, the percentages were 79% of women and 77% of men. The CDC’s 2021 guidelines on treatment and screening for STIs note that prevalence rates of certain infections – such as chlamydia and gonorrhea in females – are highest among adolescents and young adults.

Those trends underscore the importance of counseling on sexual health that clinicians can provide, but time constraints may limit how much they can discuss in a single session with a patient. To cover all topics that are important to parents and patients, doctors may need to discuss sexual and reproductive health sooner and more frequently.

Young people are getting more and more explicit information from their phones and media, yet educators are giving them less information to navigate these topics and learn what’s real, Dr. Kantor said. That mismatch can be toxic. In a December 2021 interview with Howard Stern, the pop star Billie Eilish said she started watching pornography at about age 11 and frequently watched videos that were violent. “I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn,” Ms. Eilish told Mr. Stern.

Researchers and a psychologist told CNN that the singer’s story may be typical. It also highlights a need to be aware of kids’ online activities and to have conversations about how pornography may not depict healthy interactions, they said.

Beyond discussing a plan for preventing pregnancy and STIs, Dr. Kantor encouraged discussions about what constitutes healthy relationships, as well as check-ins about intimate partner violence and how romantic relationships are going.

“I think for pediatricians and for parents, it’s a muscle,” she said. “As you bring up these topics more, listen, and respond, you get more comfortable with it.”

Dr. Trent has served as an advisory board member on a sexual health council for Trojan (Church & Dwight Company) and has received research funding from Hologic and research supplies from SpeeDx. Dr. Bell has received funds from the Merck Foundation, Merck, and Gilead. Dr. Kantor had no disclosures.

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

Maria Trent, MD, MPH, was studying ways clinicians can leverage technology to care for adolescents years before COVID-19 exposed the challenges and advantages of telehealth.

Dr. Trent, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has long believed that the phones in her patients’ pockets have the potential to improve the sexual health of youth. The pandemic has only made that view stronger.

“They’re a generation that’s really wired and online,” Dr. Trent told this news organization. “I think that we can meet them in that space.”

Her research has incorporated texting, apps, and videos. Out of necessity, technology increasingly became part of patient care during the pandemic. “We had to stretch our ability to do some basic triage and assessments of patients online,” Dr. Trent said.

Even when clinics are closed, doctors might be able to provide initial care remotely, such as writing prescriptions to manage symptoms or directing patients to a lab for testing.

Telemedicine could allow a clinician to guide a teenager who thinks they might be pregnant to take a store-bought test and avoid possible exposure to COVID-19 in the ED, for instance.

But doctors have concerns about the legal and practical limits of privacy and confidentiality. Who else is at home listening to a phone conversation? Are parents accessing the patient’s online portal? Will parents receive an explanation of benefits that lists testing for a sexually transmitted infection, or see a testing kit that is delivered to their home?

When a young patient needs in-person care, transportation can be a barrier. And then there’s the matter of clinicians being able to bill for telehealth services.

Practices are learning how to navigate these issues, and relevant laws vary by state.

“I think this is going to become part of standard practice,” Dr. Trent said. “I think we have to do the hard work to make sure that it’s safe, that it’s accessible, and that it is actually improving care.”
 

Texts, apps, videos

In one early study, Dr. Trent and colleagues found that showing adolescents with pelvic inflammatory disease a 6-minute video may improve treatment rates for their sexual partners.

Another study provided preliminary evidence that text messaging support might improve clinic attendance for moderately long-acting reversible contraception.

A third trial showed that adolescents and young adults with pelvic inflammatory disease who were randomly assigned to receive text-message prompts to take their medications and provide information about the doses they consumed had greater decreases in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis infections, compared with patients who received standard care.

Dr. Trent and coinvestigators are assessing a technology-based intervention for youth with HIV, in which patients can use an app to submit videos of themselves taking antiretroviral therapy and report any side effects. The technology provides a way to monitor patients remotely and support them between visits, she said.
 

Will pandemic-driven options remain?

In 2020, Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute in New York, and coauthors discussed the possible ramifications of the pandemic on the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents and young adults.

If telemedicine options driven by COVID-19 are here to stay, adolescents and young adults could be “the age group most likely to continue that approach rather than returning to traditional in-person visits,” the researchers wrote. “Innovations in health care service provision, such as use of telemedicine and obtaining contraceptives and STI testing by mail, will help expand access to [sexual and reproductive health] care for young people.”

At the 2021 annual conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Trent described telehealth as a viable way to provide sexual and reproductive health care to adolescents and young adults, including anticipatory guidance, contraception counseling, coordination of follow-up care and testing, and connecting patients to resources.

Her presentation cited several websites that can help patients receive testing for STIs, including Yes Means Test, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s GetTested page, and I Want the Kit. Planned Parenthood has telehealth options, and the Kaiser Family Foundation compiled information about 26 online platforms that were providing contraception or STI services.
 

Who else is in the room?

“There’s only so much time in the day and so many patients you can see, regardless of whether you have telehealth or not,” said David L. Bell, MD, MPH, president of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and a coauthor of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health paper. In addition, “you never know who else is in the room” with the patient on the other end, added Dr. Bell, a professor of population and family health and pediatrics at the Columbia University Medical Center and medical director of the Young Men’s Clinic, both in New York.

In some respects, young patients may not be able to participate in telehealth visits the same way they would in a medical office, Dr. Trent acknowledged. Encouraging the use of headphones is one way to help protect confidentiality when talking with patients who are at home and might not be alone.

But if patients are able to find a private space for remote visits, they might be more open than usual. In that way, telemedicine could provide additional opportunities to address issues like substance use disorders and mental health, as well, she said.

“Then, if they need something, we have to problem solve,” Dr. Trent said. Next steps may involve engaging a parent or getting the patient to a lab or the clinic.
 

Sex ed may be lacking

The Perspectives article also raised concerns that the pandemic might exacerbate shortcomings in sex education, which already may have been lacking.

“Before the pandemic, schools were a key source of formal sex education for young people,” the authors wrote. “Sex education, which was already limited in many areas of the country, has likely not been included in the national shift to online learning. Even when in-person schooling resumes, missed sex education instruction is unlikely to be made up, given the modest attention it received prior to the pandemic.”

A recently published study in the Journal of Adolescent Health indicates that American teenagers currently receive less formal sex education than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” inequities by race.

Researchers surveyed adolescents about what they had learned about topics such as how to say no to sex, methods of birth control and where to get them, and STIs.

Dr. Lindberg and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, professor and chair of the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Newark, N.J., conducted the analysis.

“Pediatricians and other health care providers that work with children and adolescents have a critical role to play in providing information about sexuality to both the patients and to the parents,” said Dr. Kantor, who also coauthored the Perspectives article with Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Bell. The new research “shows that doctors play an even more critical role, because they can’t assume that their patients are going to get the information that they need in a timely way from schools.”

By age 15, 21% of girls and 20% of boys have had sexual intercourse at least once, according to data from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth. By age 17, the percentages were 53% of girls and 48% of boys. By age 20, the percentages were 79% of women and 77% of men. The CDC’s 2021 guidelines on treatment and screening for STIs note that prevalence rates of certain infections – such as chlamydia and gonorrhea in females – are highest among adolescents and young adults.

Those trends underscore the importance of counseling on sexual health that clinicians can provide, but time constraints may limit how much they can discuss in a single session with a patient. To cover all topics that are important to parents and patients, doctors may need to discuss sexual and reproductive health sooner and more frequently.

Young people are getting more and more explicit information from their phones and media, yet educators are giving them less information to navigate these topics and learn what’s real, Dr. Kantor said. That mismatch can be toxic. In a December 2021 interview with Howard Stern, the pop star Billie Eilish said she started watching pornography at about age 11 and frequently watched videos that were violent. “I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn,” Ms. Eilish told Mr. Stern.

Researchers and a psychologist told CNN that the singer’s story may be typical. It also highlights a need to be aware of kids’ online activities and to have conversations about how pornography may not depict healthy interactions, they said.

Beyond discussing a plan for preventing pregnancy and STIs, Dr. Kantor encouraged discussions about what constitutes healthy relationships, as well as check-ins about intimate partner violence and how romantic relationships are going.

“I think for pediatricians and for parents, it’s a muscle,” she said. “As you bring up these topics more, listen, and respond, you get more comfortable with it.”

Dr. Trent has served as an advisory board member on a sexual health council for Trojan (Church & Dwight Company) and has received research funding from Hologic and research supplies from SpeeDx. Dr. Bell has received funds from the Merck Foundation, Merck, and Gilead. Dr. Kantor had no disclosures.

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

Maria Trent, MD, MPH, was studying ways clinicians can leverage technology to care for adolescents years before COVID-19 exposed the challenges and advantages of telehealth.

Dr. Trent, a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has long believed that the phones in her patients’ pockets have the potential to improve the sexual health of youth. The pandemic has only made that view stronger.

“They’re a generation that’s really wired and online,” Dr. Trent told this news organization. “I think that we can meet them in that space.”

Her research has incorporated texting, apps, and videos. Out of necessity, technology increasingly became part of patient care during the pandemic. “We had to stretch our ability to do some basic triage and assessments of patients online,” Dr. Trent said.

Even when clinics are closed, doctors might be able to provide initial care remotely, such as writing prescriptions to manage symptoms or directing patients to a lab for testing.

Telemedicine could allow a clinician to guide a teenager who thinks they might be pregnant to take a store-bought test and avoid possible exposure to COVID-19 in the ED, for instance.

But doctors have concerns about the legal and practical limits of privacy and confidentiality. Who else is at home listening to a phone conversation? Are parents accessing the patient’s online portal? Will parents receive an explanation of benefits that lists testing for a sexually transmitted infection, or see a testing kit that is delivered to their home?

When a young patient needs in-person care, transportation can be a barrier. And then there’s the matter of clinicians being able to bill for telehealth services.

Practices are learning how to navigate these issues, and relevant laws vary by state.

“I think this is going to become part of standard practice,” Dr. Trent said. “I think we have to do the hard work to make sure that it’s safe, that it’s accessible, and that it is actually improving care.”
 

Texts, apps, videos

In one early study, Dr. Trent and colleagues found that showing adolescents with pelvic inflammatory disease a 6-minute video may improve treatment rates for their sexual partners.

Another study provided preliminary evidence that text messaging support might improve clinic attendance for moderately long-acting reversible contraception.

A third trial showed that adolescents and young adults with pelvic inflammatory disease who were randomly assigned to receive text-message prompts to take their medications and provide information about the doses they consumed had greater decreases in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis infections, compared with patients who received standard care.

Dr. Trent and coinvestigators are assessing a technology-based intervention for youth with HIV, in which patients can use an app to submit videos of themselves taking antiretroviral therapy and report any side effects. The technology provides a way to monitor patients remotely and support them between visits, she said.
 

Will pandemic-driven options remain?

In 2020, Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute in New York, and coauthors discussed the possible ramifications of the pandemic on the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents and young adults.

If telemedicine options driven by COVID-19 are here to stay, adolescents and young adults could be “the age group most likely to continue that approach rather than returning to traditional in-person visits,” the researchers wrote. “Innovations in health care service provision, such as use of telemedicine and obtaining contraceptives and STI testing by mail, will help expand access to [sexual and reproductive health] care for young people.”

At the 2021 annual conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Trent described telehealth as a viable way to provide sexual and reproductive health care to adolescents and young adults, including anticipatory guidance, contraception counseling, coordination of follow-up care and testing, and connecting patients to resources.

Her presentation cited several websites that can help patients receive testing for STIs, including Yes Means Test, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s GetTested page, and I Want the Kit. Planned Parenthood has telehealth options, and the Kaiser Family Foundation compiled information about 26 online platforms that were providing contraception or STI services.
 

Who else is in the room?

“There’s only so much time in the day and so many patients you can see, regardless of whether you have telehealth or not,” said David L. Bell, MD, MPH, president of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and a coauthor of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health paper. In addition, “you never know who else is in the room” with the patient on the other end, added Dr. Bell, a professor of population and family health and pediatrics at the Columbia University Medical Center and medical director of the Young Men’s Clinic, both in New York.

In some respects, young patients may not be able to participate in telehealth visits the same way they would in a medical office, Dr. Trent acknowledged. Encouraging the use of headphones is one way to help protect confidentiality when talking with patients who are at home and might not be alone.

But if patients are able to find a private space for remote visits, they might be more open than usual. In that way, telemedicine could provide additional opportunities to address issues like substance use disorders and mental health, as well, she said.

“Then, if they need something, we have to problem solve,” Dr. Trent said. Next steps may involve engaging a parent or getting the patient to a lab or the clinic.
 

Sex ed may be lacking

The Perspectives article also raised concerns that the pandemic might exacerbate shortcomings in sex education, which already may have been lacking.

“Before the pandemic, schools were a key source of formal sex education for young people,” the authors wrote. “Sex education, which was already limited in many areas of the country, has likely not been included in the national shift to online learning. Even when in-person schooling resumes, missed sex education instruction is unlikely to be made up, given the modest attention it received prior to the pandemic.”

A recently published study in the Journal of Adolescent Health indicates that American teenagers currently receive less formal sex education than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” inequities by race.

Researchers surveyed adolescents about what they had learned about topics such as how to say no to sex, methods of birth control and where to get them, and STIs.

Dr. Lindberg and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, professor and chair of the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Newark, N.J., conducted the analysis.

“Pediatricians and other health care providers that work with children and adolescents have a critical role to play in providing information about sexuality to both the patients and to the parents,” said Dr. Kantor, who also coauthored the Perspectives article with Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Bell. The new research “shows that doctors play an even more critical role, because they can’t assume that their patients are going to get the information that they need in a timely way from schools.”

By age 15, 21% of girls and 20% of boys have had sexual intercourse at least once, according to data from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth. By age 17, the percentages were 53% of girls and 48% of boys. By age 20, the percentages were 79% of women and 77% of men. The CDC’s 2021 guidelines on treatment and screening for STIs note that prevalence rates of certain infections – such as chlamydia and gonorrhea in females – are highest among adolescents and young adults.

Those trends underscore the importance of counseling on sexual health that clinicians can provide, but time constraints may limit how much they can discuss in a single session with a patient. To cover all topics that are important to parents and patients, doctors may need to discuss sexual and reproductive health sooner and more frequently.

Young people are getting more and more explicit information from their phones and media, yet educators are giving them less information to navigate these topics and learn what’s real, Dr. Kantor said. That mismatch can be toxic. In a December 2021 interview with Howard Stern, the pop star Billie Eilish said she started watching pornography at about age 11 and frequently watched videos that were violent. “I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn,” Ms. Eilish told Mr. Stern.

Researchers and a psychologist told CNN that the singer’s story may be typical. It also highlights a need to be aware of kids’ online activities and to have conversations about how pornography may not depict healthy interactions, they said.

Beyond discussing a plan for preventing pregnancy and STIs, Dr. Kantor encouraged discussions about what constitutes healthy relationships, as well as check-ins about intimate partner violence and how romantic relationships are going.

“I think for pediatricians and for parents, it’s a muscle,” she said. “As you bring up these topics more, listen, and respond, you get more comfortable with it.”

Dr. Trent has served as an advisory board member on a sexual health council for Trojan (Church & Dwight Company) and has received research funding from Hologic and research supplies from SpeeDx. Dr. Bell has received funds from the Merck Foundation, Merck, and Gilead. Dr. Kantor had no disclosures.

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

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.

New research offers more insight into potentially dangerous racial disparities in cesarean deliveries: In first-time live births, healthy African-American and Hispanic mothers were 21% and 26% more likely than White mothers, respectively, to deliver by cesarean section despite being low risk. The higher number of cesareans appeared to boost their risk of morbidity.

“A 20% increased odds of cesarean among otherwise healthy, low-risk, nulliparous individuals at term – with limited medical or obstetric explanation – is a significant concern, especially when considering that cesarean is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.,” said study author Michelle P. Debbink, MD, PhD, an assistant professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, in an interview.

Dr. Debbink and colleagues launched the study, published in the Jan. 2022 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, to better understand the racial gap in cesarean sections, which are considered riskier than vaginal deliveries. “Several studies have shown that Black women undergo cesarean more frequently than non-Hispanic White women. Numerous studies also show that Hispanic/Latina women undergo cesarean more frequently than White women, although these data are a bit more mixed,” she said. “What we don’t know, however, is why these differences occur and whether there are clues in the data which can point us toward interventions to close the gap.”

One theory, she said, is that Black and Hispanic women have more comorbidities and therefore more cesareans. To test that idea, the researchers found a cohort of healthy women in a randomized trial that studied the induction of labor.

For the study, they focused on 5,759 women (24.3% Black, 30% Hispanic, 46.6% White). Major differences between the groups included maternal age (average = 21 for Black, 22 for Hispanic, and 26 for White, P < .001), private insurance (17% for Black and Hispanic, 75% for White; P < .001), and full or part-time employment (37% for Black, 31% for Hispanic, and 71% for White; P < .001).

A total of 1,158 of the women (20.1%) underwent cesarean deliveries, accounting for 23% of deliveries by Black women, 22.8% of those by Hispanic women, and 17.6% of those by White women (P < .001). Black women were 21% more likely than White women to give birth via cesarean (adjusted relative risk = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic women were 26% more likely (aRR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.46).

The study doesn’t explore why Black and Hispanic women have more cesarean deliveries. However, Dr. Debbink said, “we hypothesize that the difference likely stems more from differing treatment of Black or Hispanic individuals during labor.” It’s unlikely, she said, that these women are more likely to prefer cesarean sections. For one thing, she said, other research hasn’t shown a difference in preferences by race.

The researchers also analyzed maternal morbidity, defined as “transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death.”

The study found that while few women (2.3%) suffered from morbidity, Black (aRR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.14) women were more likely to suffer from it than White women.

The researchers report that “cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI: 4.0%-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively.”

“Both endometritis and wound complications are much more common among individuals with cesarean, and blood clots, hysterectomy, and ICU admission are also more common after cesarean compared with vaginal delivery,” Dr. Debbink said.

The message of the study, she said, is that the health care system “perpetuates gaps in cesarean delivery for Black and Hispanic individuals compared to White individuals” even in low-risk, first-time live births. “We do not yet know exactly what the right levers are to address this gap, but it is important that we ob-gyns examine our practice patterns and our hospitals’ practice patterns to ensure equity for all our patients.”

Rebecca Delafield, PhD, an assistant professor of Native Hawaiian Health at the University of Hawaii, praised the study as “well-conducted” in an interview. “I agree with the assessment that while the cesarean delivery accounts for a modest proportion of excess morbidity in this study, the impact at the population level is significant,” said Dr. Delafield, who studies health disparities and didn’t take part in the study. “Delivery is complex and the causes of disparities observed are likely multifactorial, therefore research such as this is necessary and compelling.”

She added: “It is becoming increasingly evident that studies investigating racial/ethnic disparities in cesarean delivery and other maternal health outcomes must look beyond maternal behavioral or medical risk factors – e.g., obesity or hypertension – and consider the contribution of a broader set of factors, including societal prejudices.”

The study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One study author reports funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moderna, and UpToDate (contributor) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via her institution). Dr. Debbink, the other authors, and Dr. Delafield report no disclosures.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

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

New results from the phase 3 RxPONDER trial add to mounting evidence that most postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer derive no added benefits from chemotherapy and can be effectively treated with endocrine therapy alone.

The study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, conversely shows that premenopausal women do benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, theorized by many to largely be the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression.

The RxPONDER trial results are in line with those from the practice-changing TAILORx trial and underscore that “postmenopausal women with 1 to 3 positive nodes and [a recurrence score] of 0 to 25 can likely safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising invasive disease-free survival,” first author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization. “This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions.”

However, the authors note, “premenopausal women with 1-3 positive lymph nodes had a significant benefit from chemotherapy.”

The study, conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Cancer Research Network, involved 5,018 women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer with one to three positive axillary lymph nodes – a breast cancer profile that represents approximately 20% of cases in the U.S.

All women had recurrence scores on the 100-point 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype Dx) under 25, which is considered the lowest risk of recurrence. Patients were randomized to treatment with endocrine therapy only (n = 2,507) or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (n = 2,511).

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, women treated with adjunctive chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy exhibited no significant improvements in invasive disease-free survival compared to those who received endocrine therapy alone.

A prespecified analysis stratifying women by menopausal status underscored those results among postmenopausal women. In this cohort, researchers reported invasive disease-free survival was 91.9% in the endocrine-only group and 91.3% in the chemotherapy group (HR, 1.02; P = .89), indicating no benefit of the adjunctive chemotherapy.

However, among premenopausal women, the invasive disease-free survival rate was significantly higher with the addition of chemotherapy – 89.0% with endocrine-only therapy and 93.9% with both therapies (HR, 0.60; P = .002). Increases in distant relapse-free survival observed in the dual-therapy group similarly favored adding chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Even when the authors further stratified the women into recurrence scores of 0 to 13 or 14 to 25, the results remained consistent. Postmenopausal women in each of the recurrence score groups continued to show no difference in invasive disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death from chemotherapy (HR, 1.01 for each score group). Conversely, premenopausal women showed significant improvements in those outcomes when chemotherapy was added to endocrine therapy.

To what degree were the effects observed in premenopausal women the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian suppression?

“I think it’s fair to say it’s the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer for ER-positive tumors,” Harold Burstein, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said during a debate at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, when it comes to the use of chemotherapy, “age matters.”

“I strongly believe the biology of tumors is different in younger women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Loibl, an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt, said during the debate. “It’s a different disease and the effects of chemotherapy are different.”

In young women, chemotherapy has “a direct cytotoxic effect, which cannot be neglected, and an endocrine effect on ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Loibl added. “I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients.”

According to the RxPONDER authors, “whether a chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal women is due to both direct cytocidal effects and treatment-induced menopause remains unclear,” but they noted that “it is possible that the contribution of these mechanisms may vary according to age.”

Further complicating matters, Dr. Loibl added, is that age appears to be poorly represented in genetic diagnostic tools.

“I think the gene expression profiles we are currently using as standard diagnostic tools do not capture the right biology for our premenopausal patients,” she said. “We have to keep in mind that these tests were designed and validated in postmenopausal patients and were only retrospectively used in premenopausal patients.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Loibl has received honoraria from Prime and Chugai and numerous institutional research grants.

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

New results from the phase 3 RxPONDER trial add to mounting evidence that most postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer derive no added benefits from chemotherapy and can be effectively treated with endocrine therapy alone.

The study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, conversely shows that premenopausal women do benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, theorized by many to largely be the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression.

The RxPONDER trial results are in line with those from the practice-changing TAILORx trial and underscore that “postmenopausal women with 1 to 3 positive nodes and [a recurrence score] of 0 to 25 can likely safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising invasive disease-free survival,” first author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization. “This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions.”

However, the authors note, “premenopausal women with 1-3 positive lymph nodes had a significant benefit from chemotherapy.”

The study, conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Cancer Research Network, involved 5,018 women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer with one to three positive axillary lymph nodes – a breast cancer profile that represents approximately 20% of cases in the U.S.

All women had recurrence scores on the 100-point 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype Dx) under 25, which is considered the lowest risk of recurrence. Patients were randomized to treatment with endocrine therapy only (n = 2,507) or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (n = 2,511).

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, women treated with adjunctive chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy exhibited no significant improvements in invasive disease-free survival compared to those who received endocrine therapy alone.

A prespecified analysis stratifying women by menopausal status underscored those results among postmenopausal women. In this cohort, researchers reported invasive disease-free survival was 91.9% in the endocrine-only group and 91.3% in the chemotherapy group (HR, 1.02; P = .89), indicating no benefit of the adjunctive chemotherapy.

However, among premenopausal women, the invasive disease-free survival rate was significantly higher with the addition of chemotherapy – 89.0% with endocrine-only therapy and 93.9% with both therapies (HR, 0.60; P = .002). Increases in distant relapse-free survival observed in the dual-therapy group similarly favored adding chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Even when the authors further stratified the women into recurrence scores of 0 to 13 or 14 to 25, the results remained consistent. Postmenopausal women in each of the recurrence score groups continued to show no difference in invasive disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death from chemotherapy (HR, 1.01 for each score group). Conversely, premenopausal women showed significant improvements in those outcomes when chemotherapy was added to endocrine therapy.

To what degree were the effects observed in premenopausal women the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian suppression?

“I think it’s fair to say it’s the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer for ER-positive tumors,” Harold Burstein, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said during a debate at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, when it comes to the use of chemotherapy, “age matters.”

“I strongly believe the biology of tumors is different in younger women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Loibl, an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt, said during the debate. “It’s a different disease and the effects of chemotherapy are different.”

In young women, chemotherapy has “a direct cytotoxic effect, which cannot be neglected, and an endocrine effect on ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Loibl added. “I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients.”

According to the RxPONDER authors, “whether a chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal women is due to both direct cytocidal effects and treatment-induced menopause remains unclear,” but they noted that “it is possible that the contribution of these mechanisms may vary according to age.”

Further complicating matters, Dr. Loibl added, is that age appears to be poorly represented in genetic diagnostic tools.

“I think the gene expression profiles we are currently using as standard diagnostic tools do not capture the right biology for our premenopausal patients,” she said. “We have to keep in mind that these tests were designed and validated in postmenopausal patients and were only retrospectively used in premenopausal patients.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Loibl has received honoraria from Prime and Chugai and numerous institutional research grants.

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

New results from the phase 3 RxPONDER trial add to mounting evidence that most postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer derive no added benefits from chemotherapy and can be effectively treated with endocrine therapy alone.

The study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, conversely shows that premenopausal women do benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, theorized by many to largely be the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression.

The RxPONDER trial results are in line with those from the practice-changing TAILORx trial and underscore that “postmenopausal women with 1 to 3 positive nodes and [a recurrence score] of 0 to 25 can likely safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising invasive disease-free survival,” first author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization. “This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions.”

However, the authors note, “premenopausal women with 1-3 positive lymph nodes had a significant benefit from chemotherapy.”

The study, conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Cancer Research Network, involved 5,018 women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer with one to three positive axillary lymph nodes – a breast cancer profile that represents approximately 20% of cases in the U.S.

All women had recurrence scores on the 100-point 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype Dx) under 25, which is considered the lowest risk of recurrence. Patients were randomized to treatment with endocrine therapy only (n = 2,507) or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (n = 2,511).

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, women treated with adjunctive chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy exhibited no significant improvements in invasive disease-free survival compared to those who received endocrine therapy alone.

A prespecified analysis stratifying women by menopausal status underscored those results among postmenopausal women. In this cohort, researchers reported invasive disease-free survival was 91.9% in the endocrine-only group and 91.3% in the chemotherapy group (HR, 1.02; P = .89), indicating no benefit of the adjunctive chemotherapy.

However, among premenopausal women, the invasive disease-free survival rate was significantly higher with the addition of chemotherapy – 89.0% with endocrine-only therapy and 93.9% with both therapies (HR, 0.60; P = .002). Increases in distant relapse-free survival observed in the dual-therapy group similarly favored adding chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Even when the authors further stratified the women into recurrence scores of 0 to 13 or 14 to 25, the results remained consistent. Postmenopausal women in each of the recurrence score groups continued to show no difference in invasive disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death from chemotherapy (HR, 1.01 for each score group). Conversely, premenopausal women showed significant improvements in those outcomes when chemotherapy was added to endocrine therapy.

To what degree were the effects observed in premenopausal women the result of chemotherapy-induced ovarian suppression?

“I think it’s fair to say it’s the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer for ER-positive tumors,” Harold Burstein, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said during a debate at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, when it comes to the use of chemotherapy, “age matters.”

“I strongly believe the biology of tumors is different in younger women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Loibl, an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt, said during the debate. “It’s a different disease and the effects of chemotherapy are different.”

In young women, chemotherapy has “a direct cytotoxic effect, which cannot be neglected, and an endocrine effect on ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Loibl added. “I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients.”

According to the RxPONDER authors, “whether a chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal women is due to both direct cytocidal effects and treatment-induced menopause remains unclear,” but they noted that “it is possible that the contribution of these mechanisms may vary according to age.”

Further complicating matters, Dr. Loibl added, is that age appears to be poorly represented in genetic diagnostic tools.

“I think the gene expression profiles we are currently using as standard diagnostic tools do not capture the right biology for our premenopausal patients,” she said. “We have to keep in mind that these tests were designed and validated in postmenopausal patients and were only retrospectively used in premenopausal patients.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Loibl has received honoraria from Prime and Chugai and numerous institutional research grants.

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

Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 60 seconds after birth significantly reduced death or disability in infants of less than 30 weeks’ gestation, according to data from nearly 1,500 infants.

The burden of disability and mortality for babies born before 30 weeks’ gestation remains high, especially in low- and middle-income countries, wrote Kristy P. Robledo, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord is a simple procedure that may improve mortality in this population, but more research is needed; recommended times to delayed clamping range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, they noted.

In a study published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, the researchers randomized 767 very preterm infants to delayed clamping at least 60 seconds after birth and 764 to immediate clamping. Of these, 384 were multiple births (who were individually randomized), 862 were male, and 505 were born before 27 weeks’ gestation. The primary outcome was death or disability at 2 years of age. Major disability was defined as cerebral palsy, severe visual loss, deafness requiring a hearing aid or cochlear implants, major language or speech problems, or cognitive delay at 2 years corrected age. The median time to clamping was 60 seconds in the delayed group and 5 seconds in the immediate group.

Primary outcome data were available for 1,419 infants. Death or major disability occurred in 29% of infants assigned to delayed clamping compared to 34% of those assigned to immediate clamping (relative risk 0.83, P = .010). The infants were part of the APTS Childhood Follow-Up Study, an open-label superiority trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand.

By age 2 years, 8% of infants in the delayed group and 11% of those in the immediate group had died; 23% and 26%, respectively, met criteria for major disability. The impact of delayed clamping translates to a 30% reduction in relative risk of mortality at 2 years of age, but no significant impact on major disability, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the unblinded study design, lack of data on heart rate or time to first breath, and the clamping prior to 60 seconds in 26% of infants in the delayed group based on clinical concerns for these specific infants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size, low risk of bias, and specific primary outcome, they said. The data support findings from recent systematic reviews and highlight the need for further trials to evaluate delayed clamping at different time points, with larger populations, inclusion of time to first breath and heart rate, and improved measures of disability, the researchers added.

In clinical practice, “Given that aiming to delay cord clamping for 60 seconds or more improved 2-year outcomes and short-term hematological measures with no evidence of significant harm, it seems reasonable to conclude that delayed clamping is appropriate as standard care in very preterm infants,” they concluded.
 

Accepting simple intervention could have great impact

This study is important in light of the overwhelming burden of preterm birth on the health care system and society as a whole, Lisette D. Tanner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Preterm birth is associated with billions in health care costs each year, and a large portion of that money is directed to the complications associated with preterm birth, such as early intervention services, educational support, and ongoing medical care,” Dr. Tanner said. “This study is particularly timely, as we are quickly approaching 2030, the deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,” she said. The goal involves “all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. Effective treatments to reduce infant and child mortality would make strong inroads toward this goal,” she explained.

Dr. Tanner said she was not surprised by the findings because previous studies have shown similar results. “However, the large, multicenter nature of this study provides additional weight to recommendations to delay cord clamping as standard practice,” she said.

“The findings of this study support the recommendations of a number of large organizations,” said Dr. Tanner. “The World Health Organization recommends that the umbilical cord not be clamped earlier than 1 minute after birth in term or preterm infants who do not require positive pressure ventilation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend a delay in umbilical cord clamping in vigorous term and preterm infants for at least 30–60 seconds after birth,” she said. “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also recommends deferring umbilical cord clamping for healthy term and preterm infants for at least 2 minutes after birth,” she added.  

However, “the delay in adoption of this guidelines in practice appears to be related to some concerns regarding universal adoption of this approach,” Dr. Tanner noted. “Some clinicians have suggested that delayed cord clamping could delay vital neonatal resuscitative efforts, leading to worse neonatal outcomes, but this concern has not been borne out in the data, as all guidelines specifically state that this intervention is for vigorous newborns,” she said. “In fact, in preterm infants, delayed cord clamping is associated with improved transitional circulation, decreased need for blood transfusion, and lower incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage,” Dr. Tanner emphasized. “Additionally, concerns persist that delayed cord clamping could lead to excessive transfusion with resultant polycythemia. Again, no data have supported this claim to date,” she said.

“Finally, some clinicians are concerned that delayed clamping could lead to delay in addressing maternal complications of birth such as hemorrhage, but studies have shown the opposite; delayed umbilical cord clamping has not been associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage or increased blood loss at delivery, nor has it been with a difference in the need for blood transfusion,” said Dr. Tanner.

Ideally, practitioners will become more comfortable in delaying cord clamping as a routine practice as more data demonstrating the safety and benefit of this easy intervention are disseminated, she said.

Additional research delineating which gestational ages benefit most from delayed cord clamping would help direct education efforts to implement this intervention, Dr. Tanner noted.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The researchers and Dr. Tanner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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

In the United States, nearly 4 million women a year prepare to give birth, looking forward to the joy to come. But for some, the dream turns tragic. About 700 women die each year either during their pregnancy or in the weeks after the birth. And another 60,000 have pregnancy-related or childbirth-related health issues.

Causes of death vary greatly, including hemorrhage during pregnancy or during delivery, heart conditions, and mental health issues such as substance abuse and suicide after the birth.

In 2019, the U.S. maternal death rate was 20.1 per 100,000 women, according to the CDC, significantly higher than the 17.4 per 100,000 recorded in 2018. For Black women, the maternal death rate was more than double the overall – 44 per 100,000 in 2019.

“We have to address our horrendous maternal health care system and also need to address the inequities,” says Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation supporting independent research on health care issues. “This is an issue that has needed national attention for a long time.”

“If we look overall, our maternal death rate is more than twice that of more than 10 other high-income countries,” she said.

As sobering as the problem is, recent developments have sparked hope that reversing the course is possible. Among them:

U.S. News & World Report, long known for its rankings of hospitals, issued its first ever “Best Hospitals for Maternity” rankings Dec. 7, highlighting facilities that perform well on key quality indicators. It plans to update the report annually.

At the first-ever White House Maternal Health Day of Action on Dec. 7, Vice President Kamala Harris urged a call to action to reduce maternal deaths and pregnancy-related health problems, with extension of postpartum coverage through Medicaid programs, among other actions.

A new hospital designation called ‘’Birthing Friendly” will be established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The label will be given to facilities that take part in a program aimed at improving maternal outcomes and that use patient safety practices.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better plan includes maternal health provisions, including $3 billion in new maternal health funding. The money will aim to grow and diversify the workforce caring for pregnant women, coordinate care better, and step up research on maternal health, among other projects.

Ongoing efforts in Congress are aimed at fixing the wide disparities in maternal health affecting Black women. Regardless of income level or education, Black women are at a higher risk of maternal death and other health issues than are White women. A Black woman with a college education is at 60% higher risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman who didn’t graduate high school, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
 

Best hospitals for maternity

For its rankings, U.S. News and World Report reached out to the 2,700 U.S. hospitals that offer maternity services, said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report.

To be recognized, a hospital had to submit data from 2019 and meet the publication’s maternity care standards. The publication received responses from just 571 hospitals, representing about two of every five births in the country.

Of those, 237 were identified as best for maternity.

As to why the response rate was not higher, Mr. Harder cited the reporting burden and says it is understandable. Some hospitals likely did not have the staff available, especially during the pandemic, to gather the data needed to be evaluated by U.S. News & World Report.

On their other evaluations, the rankings are based on Medicare data, “so hospitals don’t have to lift a finger.” He expects more hospitals will respond for their future evaluations of maternity care.

The evaluators focused on five quality measures, making a score based on the cesarean section delivery rate among first-time mothers, early elective delivery rates, unexpected newborn complication rates, breastfeeding rates, and option for vaginal birth after C-section.
 

A call to action: Expand coverage

Speaking at the White House Maternal Health Day of Action, Mrs. Harris told participants: “The challenge is urgent, and it is important, and it will take all of us.”

Being pregnant and giving birth, she said, should not carry such great risks. She zeroed in on systemic inequities in the way women are treated and the dramatic impact maternal death and health issues have on the economy.

“A healthy economy requires healthy mothers and healthy babies,” Mrs. Harris said.

“Before, during, and after childbirth, women in our nation are dying at a higher rate than any other developed nation in our world,” she said, noting that research shows that Black women, Native Americans, and women in rural America more likely to suffer.

A major strategy in the call to action, according to Mrs. Harris, is encouraging states to expand postpartum coverage to pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from the existing 60 days to a full year. Together, these two programs cover over 42% of births in the country, so expanding the coverage is expected to have a great impact.

The 60 days of coverage is not enough, as many deaths and complications happen more than 60 days after childbirth, Mrs. Harris said. The logistics for states to extend coverage were established by the American Rescue Plan and will become available by April 2022. Some states have already extended the postpartum coverage.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, if every state did adopt an extension, as the Build Back Better Act proposes, the number of Americans getting coverage for a full year after childbirth would about double, extending the coverage for about 720,000 each year.
 

Congressional actions

Congress is working on the issue as well. The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, for instance, proposes several measures, including improving maternal nutrition, expanding affordable housing, and extending the maternal workforce to include more doulas and midwives.

“And for so many women, let’s note doulas are literally a lifeline,” Mrs. Harris said at the White House event.

Doulas are trained to offer women physical, emotional, and informational support before, during, and after childbirth. No reliable statistics are available on their numbers in the United States, but a March of Dimes report estimates that about 9,000 were included in a registration database in 2018.
 

Explaining and fixing the disparities

No one can explain for sure why Black women, in particular, are at higher risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications. Systemic inequity is one likely reason, Mrs. Harris said, noting there are differences in how people are treated based on who they are.

Inherent and unconscious bias in offering women treatment plays a role, experts say. Training could reverse or reduce that bias. Some women of color also may have less access to care, as do women in some rural areas.

According to Mrs. Harris, more than 20 companies and nonprofits have pledged to invest more than $20 million in maternal health efforts in the United States and more than $150 million globally. Among the proposed programs: remote-care monitors in rural areas, better care models for the postpartum period, and improved education programs for maternal health providers.
 

When statistics hit home

Many who work to improve maternal health have gone through issues themselves or had loved ones who did.

Jill Arnold, founder of the Maternal Safety Foundation in Bentonville, Ark., became a consumer advocate after giving birth to her two daughters, now teenagers. With the first birth, Ms. Arnold said she was intensely pressured at the last minute to have a C-section. She held out, resisted, and delivered a healthy baby vaginally.

For her second childbirth, she chose an accredited birth center that allowed her to have a doula and a midwife.

“The care I received was night and day,” she said. “The overwhelming pressure to consent to a C-section wasn’t there.”

She welcomes the information provided by the new U.S. News & World Report rankings as well as the upcoming “Birthing Friendly” designations.

“The onus shouldn’t be on patients, on individuals, on pregnant people to do the research,” Ms. Arnold said.

Rather, women and their partners need information at their fingertips so they can make an informed decision about how to give birth and where.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who cofounded the Black Maternal Health Caucus in April 2019, with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), wrote a touching blog in the journal Health Affairs to explain her passion in improving maternal health.

Her former classmate, Shalon Irving, who went on to become a CDC epidemiologist, died in February 2017 at age 36, just 3 weeks after giving birth, when she developed complications from high blood pressure.

In the blog, Ms. Underwood cited statistics and provides details of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021, then ends the blog, published in 2020, with an update on how Ms. Irving’s then 3-year-old daughter, raised by her grandmother, is doing. While Soleil is “curious, joyful, and brilliant,” the grandmother told Ms. Underwood that she has also walked into a room and found the little girl clutching a framed photograph of her mother.

The child’s question is understandable and heartbreaking: She wants to know where her mommy is.

“Soleil’s question is my motivation,” Ms. Underwood wrote. “To honor Shalon, and all the women like her who we have lost, let us take the serious and urgent action that is required to save our moms.”

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