Women's Health

Summer heat is notorious for making the strain of pregnancy worse. But for many pregnant people, sweltering temperatures are much worse than a sweaty annoyance.

New research shows that the risk of miscarriage rises sharply as the mercury climbs. In late August, for example, the risk of losing a pregnancy is 44% higher than in February, according to the findings.

“One of our hypotheses is that heat may trigger miscarriage, which is something that we are now exploring further,” says Amelia Wesselink, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, who led the study team. “Our next step is to dig into drivers of this seasonal pattern.”

She and her colleagues analyzed seasonal differences and pregnancy outcomes for over 12,000 women. Spontaneous abortion rates peaked in late August, especially for those living in the southern and midwestern United States.

Spontaneous abortion was defined as miscarriage, chemical pregnancy (a very early miscarriage where the embryo stops growing), or blighted ovum (the embryo stops developing or never develops).

From 2013 to 2020, 12,197 women living in the United States and Canada were followed for up to 1 year using Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an internet-based fertility study from the Boston University School of Public Health. Those in the study answered questions about their income, education, race/ethnicity, and lifestyle, as well as follow-up questions about their pregnancy and/or loss of pregnancy.

Most of the people studied were non-Hispanic White (86%) and had at least a college degree (79%). Almost half earned more than $100,000 annually (47%). Those seeking fertility treatments were excluded from the study.

Half of the women (6,104) said they conceived in the first 12 months of trying to get pregnant, and almost one in five (19.5%) of those who conceived miscarried.

The risk of miscarriage was 44% higher in late August than it was in late February, the month with the lowest rate of lost pregnancies. This trend was almost exclusively seen for pregnancies in their first 8 weeks. The risk of miscarriage increased 31% in late August for pregnancies at any stage.

The link between miscarriage and extreme heat was strongest in the South and Midwest, with peaks in late August and early September, respectively.

“We know so little about the causes of miscarriage that it’s difficult to tie seasonal variation in risk to any particular cause,” says David Savitz, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and obstetrics, gynecology & pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who helped conduct the study. “Exposures vary by summer, including a lower risk of respiratory infection in the warm season, changes in diet and physical activity, and physical factors such as temperature and sunlight.”

But another expert warned that extreme heat may not be the only culprit in summer’s observed miscarriage rates.

“You need to be careful when linking summer months to miscarriage, as women may pursue more outdoor activities during summer,” says Saifuddin Ahmed PhD, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

Although the paper suggested physical activity may play a role in miscarriage frequency, no analysis supported this claim, Dr. Ahmed says.

Also, participants in the study were mostly White and tended to be wealthier than the general population, so the findings may not apply to everyone, Dr. Wesselink says. Although the researchers saw some similarities between participants with income above $100,000 a year and those who earned less, socioeconomic status plays an important role in environmental exposures – including heat – so the results may not hold among lower-income populations, Dr. Wesselink says.

Dr. Wesselink and her colleagues published their findings in the journal Epidemiology.

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

Summer heat is notorious for making the strain of pregnancy worse. But for many pregnant people, sweltering temperatures are much worse than a sweaty annoyance.

New research shows that the risk of miscarriage rises sharply as the mercury climbs. In late August, for example, the risk of losing a pregnancy is 44% higher than in February, according to the findings.

“One of our hypotheses is that heat may trigger miscarriage, which is something that we are now exploring further,” says Amelia Wesselink, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, who led the study team. “Our next step is to dig into drivers of this seasonal pattern.”

She and her colleagues analyzed seasonal differences and pregnancy outcomes for over 12,000 women. Spontaneous abortion rates peaked in late August, especially for those living in the southern and midwestern United States.

Spontaneous abortion was defined as miscarriage, chemical pregnancy (a very early miscarriage where the embryo stops growing), or blighted ovum (the embryo stops developing or never develops).

From 2013 to 2020, 12,197 women living in the United States and Canada were followed for up to 1 year using Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an internet-based fertility study from the Boston University School of Public Health. Those in the study answered questions about their income, education, race/ethnicity, and lifestyle, as well as follow-up questions about their pregnancy and/or loss of pregnancy.

Most of the people studied were non-Hispanic White (86%) and had at least a college degree (79%). Almost half earned more than $100,000 annually (47%). Those seeking fertility treatments were excluded from the study.

Half of the women (6,104) said they conceived in the first 12 months of trying to get pregnant, and almost one in five (19.5%) of those who conceived miscarried.

The risk of miscarriage was 44% higher in late August than it was in late February, the month with the lowest rate of lost pregnancies. This trend was almost exclusively seen for pregnancies in their first 8 weeks. The risk of miscarriage increased 31% in late August for pregnancies at any stage.

The link between miscarriage and extreme heat was strongest in the South and Midwest, with peaks in late August and early September, respectively.

“We know so little about the causes of miscarriage that it’s difficult to tie seasonal variation in risk to any particular cause,” says David Savitz, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and obstetrics, gynecology & pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who helped conduct the study. “Exposures vary by summer, including a lower risk of respiratory infection in the warm season, changes in diet and physical activity, and physical factors such as temperature and sunlight.”

But another expert warned that extreme heat may not be the only culprit in summer’s observed miscarriage rates.

“You need to be careful when linking summer months to miscarriage, as women may pursue more outdoor activities during summer,” says Saifuddin Ahmed PhD, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

Although the paper suggested physical activity may play a role in miscarriage frequency, no analysis supported this claim, Dr. Ahmed says.

Also, participants in the study were mostly White and tended to be wealthier than the general population, so the findings may not apply to everyone, Dr. Wesselink says. Although the researchers saw some similarities between participants with income above $100,000 a year and those who earned less, socioeconomic status plays an important role in environmental exposures – including heat – so the results may not hold among lower-income populations, Dr. Wesselink says.

Dr. Wesselink and her colleagues published their findings in the journal Epidemiology.

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

Summer heat is notorious for making the strain of pregnancy worse. But for many pregnant people, sweltering temperatures are much worse than a sweaty annoyance.

New research shows that the risk of miscarriage rises sharply as the mercury climbs. In late August, for example, the risk of losing a pregnancy is 44% higher than in February, according to the findings.

“One of our hypotheses is that heat may trigger miscarriage, which is something that we are now exploring further,” says Amelia Wesselink, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, who led the study team. “Our next step is to dig into drivers of this seasonal pattern.”

She and her colleagues analyzed seasonal differences and pregnancy outcomes for over 12,000 women. Spontaneous abortion rates peaked in late August, especially for those living in the southern and midwestern United States.

Spontaneous abortion was defined as miscarriage, chemical pregnancy (a very early miscarriage where the embryo stops growing), or blighted ovum (the embryo stops developing or never develops).

From 2013 to 2020, 12,197 women living in the United States and Canada were followed for up to 1 year using Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an internet-based fertility study from the Boston University School of Public Health. Those in the study answered questions about their income, education, race/ethnicity, and lifestyle, as well as follow-up questions about their pregnancy and/or loss of pregnancy.

Most of the people studied were non-Hispanic White (86%) and had at least a college degree (79%). Almost half earned more than $100,000 annually (47%). Those seeking fertility treatments were excluded from the study.

Half of the women (6,104) said they conceived in the first 12 months of trying to get pregnant, and almost one in five (19.5%) of those who conceived miscarried.

The risk of miscarriage was 44% higher in late August than it was in late February, the month with the lowest rate of lost pregnancies. This trend was almost exclusively seen for pregnancies in their first 8 weeks. The risk of miscarriage increased 31% in late August for pregnancies at any stage.

The link between miscarriage and extreme heat was strongest in the South and Midwest, with peaks in late August and early September, respectively.

“We know so little about the causes of miscarriage that it’s difficult to tie seasonal variation in risk to any particular cause,” says David Savitz, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and obstetrics, gynecology & pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who helped conduct the study. “Exposures vary by summer, including a lower risk of respiratory infection in the warm season, changes in diet and physical activity, and physical factors such as temperature and sunlight.”

But another expert warned that extreme heat may not be the only culprit in summer’s observed miscarriage rates.

“You need to be careful when linking summer months to miscarriage, as women may pursue more outdoor activities during summer,” says Saifuddin Ahmed PhD, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

Although the paper suggested physical activity may play a role in miscarriage frequency, no analysis supported this claim, Dr. Ahmed says.

Also, participants in the study were mostly White and tended to be wealthier than the general population, so the findings may not apply to everyone, Dr. Wesselink says. Although the researchers saw some similarities between participants with income above $100,000 a year and those who earned less, socioeconomic status plays an important role in environmental exposures – including heat – so the results may not hold among lower-income populations, Dr. Wesselink says.

Dr. Wesselink and her colleagues published their findings in the journal Epidemiology.

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

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Many women who got a COVID-19 vaccine have reported heavier bleeding during their periods since they had the shots.

A team of researchers investigated the trend and set out to find out who among the vaccinated were more likely to experience the menstruation changes.

The researchers were led by Katharine M.N. Lee, PhD, MS, of the division of public health sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Their findings were published ahead of print in Science Advances.

The investigators analyzed more than 139,000 responses from an online survey from both currently and formerly menstruating women.

They found that, among people who have regular periods, about the same percentage had heavier bleeding after they got a COVID vaccine as had no change in bleeding after the vaccine (44% vs. 42%, respectively).

“A much smaller portion had lighter periods,” they write.

The phenomenon has been difficult to study because questions about changes in menstruation are not a standard part of vaccine trials.

Date of last period is often tracked in clinical trials to make sure a participant is not pregnant, but the questions about periods often stop there.

Additionally, periods are different for everyone and can be influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, so making associations regarding exposures is problematic.
 

No changes found to fertility

The authors emphasized that, generally, changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous. They also emphasized that the changes in bleeding don’t mean changes to fertility.

The uterine reproductive system is flexible when the body is under stress, they note.

“We know that running a marathon may influence hormone concentrations in the short term while not rendering that person infertile,” the authors write.

However, they acknowledge that investigating these reports is critical in building trust in medicine.

This report includes information that hasn’t been available through the clinical trial follow-up process.

For instance, the authors write, “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to examine breakthrough bleeding after vaccination in either pre- or postmenopausal people.”

Reports of changes to periods after vaccination started emerging in 2021. But without data, reports were largely dismissed, fueling criticism from those waging campaigns against COVID vaccines.

Dr. Lee and colleagues gathered data from those who responded to the online survey and detailed some trends.

People who were bleeding more heavily after vaccination were more likely to be older, Hispanic, had vaccine side effects of fever and fatigue, had been pregnant at some point, or had given birth.

People with regular periods who had endometriosis, prolonged bleeding during their periods, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or fibroids were also more likely to have increased bleeding after a COVID vaccine.
 

Breakthrough bleeding

For people who don’t menstruate, but have not reached menopause, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in women who had been pregnant and/or had given birth.

Among respondents who were postmenopausal, breakthrough bleeding happened more often in younger people and/or those who are Hispanic.

More than a third of the respondents (39%) who use gender-affirming hormones that eliminate menstruation reported breakthrough bleeding after vaccination.

The majority of premenopausal people on long-acting, reversible contraception (71%) and the majority of postmenopausal respondents (66%) had breakthrough bleeding as well.

The authors note that you can’t compare the percentages who report these experiences in the survey with the incidence of those who would experience changes in menstrual bleeding in the general population.

The nature of the online survey means it may be naturally biased because the people who responded may be more often those who noted some change in their own menstrual experiences, particularly if that involved discomfort, pain, or fear.

Researchers also acknowledge that Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other respondents of color are underrepresented in this research and that represents a limitation in the work.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was not involved with Dr. Lee and associates’ study but has also studied the relationship between COVID vaccines and menstruation.

Her team’s study found that COVID vaccination is associated with a small change in time between periods but not length of periods.

She said about the work by Dr. Lee and colleagues, “This work really elevates the voices of the public and what they’re experiencing.”

The association makes sense, Dr. Edelman says, in that the reproductive system and the immune system talk to each other and inflammation in the immune system is going to be noticed by the system governing periods.

Lack of data on the relationship between exposures and menstruation didn’t start with COVID. “There has been a signal in the population before with other vaccines that’s been dismissed,” she said.

Tracking menstruation information in clinical trials can help physicians counsel women on what may be coming with any vaccine and alleviate fears and vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Edelman explained. It can also help vaccine developers know what to include in information about their product.

“When you are counseled about what to expect, it’s not as scary. That provides trust in the system,” she said. She likened it to original lack of data on whether COVID-19 vaccines would affect pregnancy.

“We have great science now that COVID vaccine does not affect fertility and [vaccine] does not impact pregnancy.”

Another important aspect of this paper is that it included subgroups not studied before regarding menstruation and breakthrough bleeding, such as those taking gender-affirming hormones, she added.

Menstruation has been often overlooked as important in clinical trial exposures but Dr. Edelman hopes this recent attention and question will escalate and prompt more research.

“I’m hoping with the immense outpouring from the public about how important this is, that future studies will look at this a little bit better,” she says.

She said when the National Institutes of Health opened up funding for trials on COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation, researchers got flooded with requests from women to share their stories.

“As a researcher – I’ve been doing research for over 20 years – that’s not something that usually happens. I would love to have that happen for every research project.”

The authors and Dr. Edelman declare that they have no competing interests. This research was supported in part by the University of Illinois Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Illinois Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and the Siteman Cancer Center.

Married for nearly 5 years, Jessica King, 34, and her wife, Sarah, agreed on some things right from the start. “We always knew kids were in the equation,” Jessica says.

Now, Jessica is nearly 20 weeks pregnant, thanks to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. They did “reciprocal” IVF, with Sarah’s egg mixed with donor sperm and the embryo transferred into Jessica. “We’re excited – and terrified,” Jessica says.

But that terror goes beyond the typical concerns of excess weight gain and long labors. They live in Missouri, one of 13 states with so-called trigger laws that went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion, giving states the power to regulate it. States with trigger laws either banned abortion immediately or within a specified time frame after the ruling. In all, 26 states are expected to have abortion restrictions.

Missouri now allows abortion only for medical emergencies. If her upcoming ultrasound shows serious issues, Jessica says they could easily travel to another state and pay for an abortion. She realizes not everyone can.

However, the concern about trigger laws goes well beyond abortion. Many experts worry about the “spill-over” effects the abortion laws – both the existing ones and future proposals – may have on fertility care and treatments.
 

‘Personhood’ laws drive the concern

“The current trigger laws on the books are not impacting people’s access to IVF,” says Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE, an advocacy group for those with fertility issues. “What we are concerned about is they will come back and make them stronger.”

The chief concern for reproductive rights advocates is so-called “personhood” legislation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, at least six bills about personhood have been introduced in five states, including Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. One of the two Oklahoma bills has gone the farthest, passed by one chamber.

Since the Guttmacher report, Ohio introduced its own personhood legislation July 11, recognizing the personhood of an unborn person from conception.

Personhood legislation defines a fertilized egg or embryo as a legal human entity, says Sean Tipton, chief policy and advocacy officer for the Washington-based American Society of Reproductive Medicine, a nonprofit advocacy group.

“If the legal status of fertilized eggs or early embryos is codified, in vitro fertilization procedures may become legally risky for patients, physicians and staff,” Mr. Tipton wrote in late June in Contemporary OB/GYN Journal. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has posted a report on state abortion trigger laws and their potential implications for reproductive medicine. Of the 13 with trigger laws in effect, the report found concern about the potential effect on IVF only with Utah’s.
 

‘Safe’ states?

Even in states without trigger laws or personhood bills, IVF patients say they are anxious about how the Supreme Court ruling may ultimately affect care. Thanks to IVF, Shelly Battista and her husband Robert are expecting twins in December, little sisters to their daughter Emilia, who is 2½.

They live in Illinois, where abortion is legal. “Even though we are safe now, I think the overturning of Roe has made it clear to all of us that none of our freedoms are safe, especially reproductive rights,” Ms. Shelly says.

About one in eight U.S. couples are infertile, according to RESOLVE, In 2019, 2% of all babies born in the United States, or about 78,000 infants, were conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technologies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most common assisted reproductive technology is IVF, in which the sperm fertilizes the egg outside the body and an embryo is then transferred. The standard of practice is to transfer a single embryo, freezing others for future use.
 

Trigger state doctors weigh in

Some fertility doctors in those “trigger” states are keeping a close eye on proposed legislation and talking to legislators for interpretation of current and proposed laws.

Eli Reshef, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and fertility specialist at Bennett Fertility Institute in Oklahoma City, notes that his state has “the strictest abortion law in the land.” The law prohibits all abortions with few exceptions, such as the removal of an ectopic pregnancy (when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, such as in the fallopian tubes).

While IVF will not be affected for now, he worries that the Oklahoma law allows a private citizen to sue a health care provider that they feel is performing abortion. The Oklahoma law leaves interpretation of abortion up to the general public, who may be unfamiliar with the language of the law, House Bill 4327.

Dean Moutos, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Arkansas Fertility and Gynecology in Little Rock, says his state’s current trigger law should not affect IVF. “When you read the bill, it says abortion means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman.” Still, he says, “we are concerned about what might happen in the future” and the possibility that some legislators may interpret that differently.
 

A minority approach

John David Gordon, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Southeastern Fertility Center for Fertility and Reproductive Surgery in Knoxville, Tenn., is also in a trigger state. However, it’s not likely any personhood laws would affect his practice.

That’s because his center, which he acknowledges is clearly in the minority, only performs natural-cycle IVF, which usually results in a single egg, or “mini-stim IVF,” which usually results in three to eight eggs in order to limit the number that may be potentially fertilized. Often, he says, patients choose to freeze unfertilized eggs (alone) to avoid creating an excessive number of embryos. He has a “no discard” program, with any viable embryos frozen or transferred. Abandoned embryos are donated to others.

“This may work for young women,” says Marcelle Cedars, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. However, she says, it will be very inefficient for older patients, since they have a higher percentage of abnormal eggs.

Overall, that approach will also drive up costs, especially for older women, Dr. Cedars says. An average cycle of IVF costs $12,400, and most Americans’ insurance plans don’t cover IVF, according to Mr. Tipton.
 

Top concerns for IVF

“Personhood” legislation has the potential to upend many common IVF practices, experts say.

Of greatest concern to fertility practices are potential restrictions on the freezing or discarding of embryos, Dr. Cedars says. “This could have a critical impact on practicing the safest, most evidence-based medicine,” she says.

Most children born in the United States as a result of IVF procedures are born from frozen embryos, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an organization for reproductive specialists.

“The practice of IVF really requires that we generate more embryos than will be used in a given [IVF] cycle,” agrees Kara Goldman, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology and medical director of the fertility preservation program at Northwestern University, Chicago. She performed the embryo transfer for the Battistas.

In nature, she says, it’s known that only a small number of eggs will be competent to generate a baby. “We see the same thing in IVF.” In a single cycle, 20 eggs may be retrieved, but many fewer typically reach successful fertilization and are able to be implanted.

When patients have completed their family, unused embryos are donated to research, donated for adoption, or destroyed. If embryo destruction is outlawed, Dr. Goldman says, it will have serious ramifications for the practice of IVF.

And if personhood legislation prohibits destroying any embryos, others wonder: Would a lab technician who accidentally dropped and destroyed an embryo be subject to charges? If laws prohibit destruction of embryos, others wonder if will families be forced to pay the embryo storage fees, generally $500-$1,000 a year, in perpetuity.

If an embryo is declared a person, it could also affect a practice called preimplantation genetic testing, or PGT. In PGT, cells are retrieved from an embryo and checked for genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, with some parents choosing to discard embryos that are found to be affected.

Some potential parents choose this testing because they know they are carriers for genetic diseases that are serious and even incompatible with life, says Art Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at New York University. They may choose to discard embryos that show evidence of the diseases.

Also under fire could be “selective reduction,” reducing multiple fetuses to a single or twin, to reduce risks to babies and mother.

Dr. Caplan predicts if states have many restrictions, some providers will adopt the attitude that “if no one reports, it did not happen.” And those prospective parents with the means, he says, will go to court and fight restrictions. “When they do it, they are saying, ‘You say you are pro-life; I’m trying to have a child. What are you doing getting in my way?’”
 

IVF families: Tough decisions, emotional times

The Battistas, of Illinois, have had an especially rough road. Shelly was diagnosed with a fast-growing breast cancer in 2020, when Emilia was just an infant. Warned that the chemotherapy she needed would suppress her ovaries, Shelly underwent egg retrieval before starting the cancer treatment.

She opted to have a double mastectomy and her ovaries removed after learning she carried the BRCA1 genetic mutation, boosting the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer.

Once she was cancer-free, she was cleared to start IVF. The first two embryo transfers failed. The third transfer, of a single embryo, was successful. But it split, a rare occurrence, producing two embryos. “It was a big shock, but in the best way,” she says about learning they were having twins. “Now we are over the moon.”

Five frozen embryos remain. At the start, the Battistas decided to discard unused embryos. She and Robert are discussing what to do next. If they decide they are done building their family after the twins’ birth, she wonders, “do we need to discard our [other] embryos before that becomes something that isn’t eligible [possible] for us any longer?” She doesn’t want to be rushed into that decision, however, especially with her medical history.

Jessica King and Sarah have 20 more embryos.

The couple had decided to donate unused embryos for research, when the time comes, and for different reasons. Her wife’s decision is based on her belief in science, while Jessica cites her faith. “As a Jew, it is part of our faith, that we should be doing everything we can to advance humanity,” she says.

In the midst of all the uncertainty, Jessica says, only half-jokingly, that she is tempted to claim the frozen embryos as dependents. “If you are truly going to claim these are precious human lives, you should be giving me all the benefits from having children,” she says.

Shelly knows that having one daughter, with two more on the way, affects her thinking about the court’s ruling. “My overall wish would be that Roe v. Wade is reinstated, and my daughters have the same rights and options that I have … or I did have until my current 36 years of life.”

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

Married for nearly 5 years, Jessica King, 34, and her wife, Sarah, agreed on some things right from the start. “We always knew kids were in the equation,” Jessica says.

Now, Jessica is nearly 20 weeks pregnant, thanks to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. They did “reciprocal” IVF, with Sarah’s egg mixed with donor sperm and the embryo transferred into Jessica. “We’re excited – and terrified,” Jessica says.

But that terror goes beyond the typical concerns of excess weight gain and long labors. They live in Missouri, one of 13 states with so-called trigger laws that went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion, giving states the power to regulate it. States with trigger laws either banned abortion immediately or within a specified time frame after the ruling. In all, 26 states are expected to have abortion restrictions.

Missouri now allows abortion only for medical emergencies. If her upcoming ultrasound shows serious issues, Jessica says they could easily travel to another state and pay for an abortion. She realizes not everyone can.

However, the concern about trigger laws goes well beyond abortion. Many experts worry about the “spill-over” effects the abortion laws – both the existing ones and future proposals – may have on fertility care and treatments.
 

‘Personhood’ laws drive the concern

“The current trigger laws on the books are not impacting people’s access to IVF,” says Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE, an advocacy group for those with fertility issues. “What we are concerned about is they will come back and make them stronger.”

The chief concern for reproductive rights advocates is so-called “personhood” legislation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, at least six bills about personhood have been introduced in five states, including Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. One of the two Oklahoma bills has gone the farthest, passed by one chamber.

Since the Guttmacher report, Ohio introduced its own personhood legislation July 11, recognizing the personhood of an unborn person from conception.

Personhood legislation defines a fertilized egg or embryo as a legal human entity, says Sean Tipton, chief policy and advocacy officer for the Washington-based American Society of Reproductive Medicine, a nonprofit advocacy group.

“If the legal status of fertilized eggs or early embryos is codified, in vitro fertilization procedures may become legally risky for patients, physicians and staff,” Mr. Tipton wrote in late June in Contemporary OB/GYN Journal. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has posted a report on state abortion trigger laws and their potential implications for reproductive medicine. Of the 13 with trigger laws in effect, the report found concern about the potential effect on IVF only with Utah’s.
 

‘Safe’ states?

Even in states without trigger laws or personhood bills, IVF patients say they are anxious about how the Supreme Court ruling may ultimately affect care. Thanks to IVF, Shelly Battista and her husband Robert are expecting twins in December, little sisters to their daughter Emilia, who is 2½.

They live in Illinois, where abortion is legal. “Even though we are safe now, I think the overturning of Roe has made it clear to all of us that none of our freedoms are safe, especially reproductive rights,” Ms. Shelly says.

About one in eight U.S. couples are infertile, according to RESOLVE, In 2019, 2% of all babies born in the United States, or about 78,000 infants, were conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technologies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most common assisted reproductive technology is IVF, in which the sperm fertilizes the egg outside the body and an embryo is then transferred. The standard of practice is to transfer a single embryo, freezing others for future use.
 

Trigger state doctors weigh in

Some fertility doctors in those “trigger” states are keeping a close eye on proposed legislation and talking to legislators for interpretation of current and proposed laws.

Eli Reshef, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and fertility specialist at Bennett Fertility Institute in Oklahoma City, notes that his state has “the strictest abortion law in the land.” The law prohibits all abortions with few exceptions, such as the removal of an ectopic pregnancy (when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, such as in the fallopian tubes).

While IVF will not be affected for now, he worries that the Oklahoma law allows a private citizen to sue a health care provider that they feel is performing abortion. The Oklahoma law leaves interpretation of abortion up to the general public, who may be unfamiliar with the language of the law, House Bill 4327.

Dean Moutos, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Arkansas Fertility and Gynecology in Little Rock, says his state’s current trigger law should not affect IVF. “When you read the bill, it says abortion means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman.” Still, he says, “we are concerned about what might happen in the future” and the possibility that some legislators may interpret that differently.
 

A minority approach

John David Gordon, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Southeastern Fertility Center for Fertility and Reproductive Surgery in Knoxville, Tenn., is also in a trigger state. However, it’s not likely any personhood laws would affect his practice.

That’s because his center, which he acknowledges is clearly in the minority, only performs natural-cycle IVF, which usually results in a single egg, or “mini-stim IVF,” which usually results in three to eight eggs in order to limit the number that may be potentially fertilized. Often, he says, patients choose to freeze unfertilized eggs (alone) to avoid creating an excessive number of embryos. He has a “no discard” program, with any viable embryos frozen or transferred. Abandoned embryos are donated to others.

“This may work for young women,” says Marcelle Cedars, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. However, she says, it will be very inefficient for older patients, since they have a higher percentage of abnormal eggs.

Overall, that approach will also drive up costs, especially for older women, Dr. Cedars says. An average cycle of IVF costs $12,400, and most Americans’ insurance plans don’t cover IVF, according to Mr. Tipton.
 

Top concerns for IVF

“Personhood” legislation has the potential to upend many common IVF practices, experts say.

Of greatest concern to fertility practices are potential restrictions on the freezing or discarding of embryos, Dr. Cedars says. “This could have a critical impact on practicing the safest, most evidence-based medicine,” she says.

Most children born in the United States as a result of IVF procedures are born from frozen embryos, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an organization for reproductive specialists.

“The practice of IVF really requires that we generate more embryos than will be used in a given [IVF] cycle,” agrees Kara Goldman, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology and medical director of the fertility preservation program at Northwestern University, Chicago. She performed the embryo transfer for the Battistas.

In nature, she says, it’s known that only a small number of eggs will be competent to generate a baby. “We see the same thing in IVF.” In a single cycle, 20 eggs may be retrieved, but many fewer typically reach successful fertilization and are able to be implanted.

When patients have completed their family, unused embryos are donated to research, donated for adoption, or destroyed. If embryo destruction is outlawed, Dr. Goldman says, it will have serious ramifications for the practice of IVF.

And if personhood legislation prohibits destroying any embryos, others wonder: Would a lab technician who accidentally dropped and destroyed an embryo be subject to charges? If laws prohibit destruction of embryos, others wonder if will families be forced to pay the embryo storage fees, generally $500-$1,000 a year, in perpetuity.

If an embryo is declared a person, it could also affect a practice called preimplantation genetic testing, or PGT. In PGT, cells are retrieved from an embryo and checked for genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, with some parents choosing to discard embryos that are found to be affected.

Some potential parents choose this testing because they know they are carriers for genetic diseases that are serious and even incompatible with life, says Art Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at New York University. They may choose to discard embryos that show evidence of the diseases.

Also under fire could be “selective reduction,” reducing multiple fetuses to a single or twin, to reduce risks to babies and mother.

Dr. Caplan predicts if states have many restrictions, some providers will adopt the attitude that “if no one reports, it did not happen.” And those prospective parents with the means, he says, will go to court and fight restrictions. “When they do it, they are saying, ‘You say you are pro-life; I’m trying to have a child. What are you doing getting in my way?’”
 

IVF families: Tough decisions, emotional times

The Battistas, of Illinois, have had an especially rough road. Shelly was diagnosed with a fast-growing breast cancer in 2020, when Emilia was just an infant. Warned that the chemotherapy she needed would suppress her ovaries, Shelly underwent egg retrieval before starting the cancer treatment.

She opted to have a double mastectomy and her ovaries removed after learning she carried the BRCA1 genetic mutation, boosting the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer.

Once she was cancer-free, she was cleared to start IVF. The first two embryo transfers failed. The third transfer, of a single embryo, was successful. But it split, a rare occurrence, producing two embryos. “It was a big shock, but in the best way,” she says about learning they were having twins. “Now we are over the moon.”

Five frozen embryos remain. At the start, the Battistas decided to discard unused embryos. She and Robert are discussing what to do next. If they decide they are done building their family after the twins’ birth, she wonders, “do we need to discard our [other] embryos before that becomes something that isn’t eligible [possible] for us any longer?” She doesn’t want to be rushed into that decision, however, especially with her medical history.

Jessica King and Sarah have 20 more embryos.

The couple had decided to donate unused embryos for research, when the time comes, and for different reasons. Her wife’s decision is based on her belief in science, while Jessica cites her faith. “As a Jew, it is part of our faith, that we should be doing everything we can to advance humanity,” she says.

In the midst of all the uncertainty, Jessica says, only half-jokingly, that she is tempted to claim the frozen embryos as dependents. “If you are truly going to claim these are precious human lives, you should be giving me all the benefits from having children,” she says.

Shelly knows that having one daughter, with two more on the way, affects her thinking about the court’s ruling. “My overall wish would be that Roe v. Wade is reinstated, and my daughters have the same rights and options that I have … or I did have until my current 36 years of life.”

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

Married for nearly 5 years, Jessica King, 34, and her wife, Sarah, agreed on some things right from the start. “We always knew kids were in the equation,” Jessica says.

Now, Jessica is nearly 20 weeks pregnant, thanks to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. They did “reciprocal” IVF, with Sarah’s egg mixed with donor sperm and the embryo transferred into Jessica. “We’re excited – and terrified,” Jessica says.

But that terror goes beyond the typical concerns of excess weight gain and long labors. They live in Missouri, one of 13 states with so-called trigger laws that went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion, giving states the power to regulate it. States with trigger laws either banned abortion immediately or within a specified time frame after the ruling. In all, 26 states are expected to have abortion restrictions.

Missouri now allows abortion only for medical emergencies. If her upcoming ultrasound shows serious issues, Jessica says they could easily travel to another state and pay for an abortion. She realizes not everyone can.

However, the concern about trigger laws goes well beyond abortion. Many experts worry about the “spill-over” effects the abortion laws – both the existing ones and future proposals – may have on fertility care and treatments.
 

‘Personhood’ laws drive the concern

“The current trigger laws on the books are not impacting people’s access to IVF,” says Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE, an advocacy group for those with fertility issues. “What we are concerned about is they will come back and make them stronger.”

The chief concern for reproductive rights advocates is so-called “personhood” legislation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, at least six bills about personhood have been introduced in five states, including Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. One of the two Oklahoma bills has gone the farthest, passed by one chamber.

Since the Guttmacher report, Ohio introduced its own personhood legislation July 11, recognizing the personhood of an unborn person from conception.

Personhood legislation defines a fertilized egg or embryo as a legal human entity, says Sean Tipton, chief policy and advocacy officer for the Washington-based American Society of Reproductive Medicine, a nonprofit advocacy group.

“If the legal status of fertilized eggs or early embryos is codified, in vitro fertilization procedures may become legally risky for patients, physicians and staff,” Mr. Tipton wrote in late June in Contemporary OB/GYN Journal. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has posted a report on state abortion trigger laws and their potential implications for reproductive medicine. Of the 13 with trigger laws in effect, the report found concern about the potential effect on IVF only with Utah’s.
 

‘Safe’ states?

Even in states without trigger laws or personhood bills, IVF patients say they are anxious about how the Supreme Court ruling may ultimately affect care. Thanks to IVF, Shelly Battista and her husband Robert are expecting twins in December, little sisters to their daughter Emilia, who is 2½.

They live in Illinois, where abortion is legal. “Even though we are safe now, I think the overturning of Roe has made it clear to all of us that none of our freedoms are safe, especially reproductive rights,” Ms. Shelly says.

About one in eight U.S. couples are infertile, according to RESOLVE, In 2019, 2% of all babies born in the United States, or about 78,000 infants, were conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technologies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most common assisted reproductive technology is IVF, in which the sperm fertilizes the egg outside the body and an embryo is then transferred. The standard of practice is to transfer a single embryo, freezing others for future use.
 

Trigger state doctors weigh in

Some fertility doctors in those “trigger” states are keeping a close eye on proposed legislation and talking to legislators for interpretation of current and proposed laws.

Eli Reshef, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and fertility specialist at Bennett Fertility Institute in Oklahoma City, notes that his state has “the strictest abortion law in the land.” The law prohibits all abortions with few exceptions, such as the removal of an ectopic pregnancy (when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, such as in the fallopian tubes).

While IVF will not be affected for now, he worries that the Oklahoma law allows a private citizen to sue a health care provider that they feel is performing abortion. The Oklahoma law leaves interpretation of abortion up to the general public, who may be unfamiliar with the language of the law, House Bill 4327.

Dean Moutos, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Arkansas Fertility and Gynecology in Little Rock, says his state’s current trigger law should not affect IVF. “When you read the bill, it says abortion means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman.” Still, he says, “we are concerned about what might happen in the future” and the possibility that some legislators may interpret that differently.
 

A minority approach

John David Gordon, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and medical director of Southeastern Fertility Center for Fertility and Reproductive Surgery in Knoxville, Tenn., is also in a trigger state. However, it’s not likely any personhood laws would affect his practice.

That’s because his center, which he acknowledges is clearly in the minority, only performs natural-cycle IVF, which usually results in a single egg, or “mini-stim IVF,” which usually results in three to eight eggs in order to limit the number that may be potentially fertilized. Often, he says, patients choose to freeze unfertilized eggs (alone) to avoid creating an excessive number of embryos. He has a “no discard” program, with any viable embryos frozen or transferred. Abandoned embryos are donated to others.

“This may work for young women,” says Marcelle Cedars, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. However, she says, it will be very inefficient for older patients, since they have a higher percentage of abnormal eggs.

Overall, that approach will also drive up costs, especially for older women, Dr. Cedars says. An average cycle of IVF costs $12,400, and most Americans’ insurance plans don’t cover IVF, according to Mr. Tipton.
 

Top concerns for IVF

“Personhood” legislation has the potential to upend many common IVF practices, experts say.

Of greatest concern to fertility practices are potential restrictions on the freezing or discarding of embryos, Dr. Cedars says. “This could have a critical impact on practicing the safest, most evidence-based medicine,” she says.

Most children born in the United States as a result of IVF procedures are born from frozen embryos, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an organization for reproductive specialists.

“The practice of IVF really requires that we generate more embryos than will be used in a given [IVF] cycle,” agrees Kara Goldman, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology and medical director of the fertility preservation program at Northwestern University, Chicago. She performed the embryo transfer for the Battistas.

In nature, she says, it’s known that only a small number of eggs will be competent to generate a baby. “We see the same thing in IVF.” In a single cycle, 20 eggs may be retrieved, but many fewer typically reach successful fertilization and are able to be implanted.

When patients have completed their family, unused embryos are donated to research, donated for adoption, or destroyed. If embryo destruction is outlawed, Dr. Goldman says, it will have serious ramifications for the practice of IVF.

And if personhood legislation prohibits destroying any embryos, others wonder: Would a lab technician who accidentally dropped and destroyed an embryo be subject to charges? If laws prohibit destruction of embryos, others wonder if will families be forced to pay the embryo storage fees, generally $500-$1,000 a year, in perpetuity.

If an embryo is declared a person, it could also affect a practice called preimplantation genetic testing, or PGT. In PGT, cells are retrieved from an embryo and checked for genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, with some parents choosing to discard embryos that are found to be affected.

Some potential parents choose this testing because they know they are carriers for genetic diseases that are serious and even incompatible with life, says Art Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at New York University. They may choose to discard embryos that show evidence of the diseases.

Also under fire could be “selective reduction,” reducing multiple fetuses to a single or twin, to reduce risks to babies and mother.

Dr. Caplan predicts if states have many restrictions, some providers will adopt the attitude that “if no one reports, it did not happen.” And those prospective parents with the means, he says, will go to court and fight restrictions. “When they do it, they are saying, ‘You say you are pro-life; I’m trying to have a child. What are you doing getting in my way?’”
 

IVF families: Tough decisions, emotional times

The Battistas, of Illinois, have had an especially rough road. Shelly was diagnosed with a fast-growing breast cancer in 2020, when Emilia was just an infant. Warned that the chemotherapy she needed would suppress her ovaries, Shelly underwent egg retrieval before starting the cancer treatment.

She opted to have a double mastectomy and her ovaries removed after learning she carried the BRCA1 genetic mutation, boosting the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer.

Once she was cancer-free, she was cleared to start IVF. The first two embryo transfers failed. The third transfer, of a single embryo, was successful. But it split, a rare occurrence, producing two embryos. “It was a big shock, but in the best way,” she says about learning they were having twins. “Now we are over the moon.”

Five frozen embryos remain. At the start, the Battistas decided to discard unused embryos. She and Robert are discussing what to do next. If they decide they are done building their family after the twins’ birth, she wonders, “do we need to discard our [other] embryos before that becomes something that isn’t eligible [possible] for us any longer?” She doesn’t want to be rushed into that decision, however, especially with her medical history.

Jessica King and Sarah have 20 more embryos.

The couple had decided to donate unused embryos for research, when the time comes, and for different reasons. Her wife’s decision is based on her belief in science, while Jessica cites her faith. “As a Jew, it is part of our faith, that we should be doing everything we can to advance humanity,” she says.

In the midst of all the uncertainty, Jessica says, only half-jokingly, that she is tempted to claim the frozen embryos as dependents. “If you are truly going to claim these are precious human lives, you should be giving me all the benefits from having children,” she says.

Shelly knows that having one daughter, with two more on the way, affects her thinking about the court’s ruling. “My overall wish would be that Roe v. Wade is reinstated, and my daughters have the same rights and options that I have … or I did have until my current 36 years of life.”

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

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

Estrogen exposure helps protect against colorectal cancer (CRC), and in some instances, the protection is site specific, a new analysis finds.

In a 17-year study involving almost 5,000 women, researchers from Germany found that hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause at age 50 or older were all significantly associated with reductions in CRC risk.

Interestingly, the reduced risk of CRC observed for pregnancy and breastfeeding only applied to proximal colon cancer, while the association with oral contraceptive use was confined to the distal colon and rectum.

The results were published online in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death. It is responsible for more than one million deaths globally, according to the latest figures from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration.

And sex seems to make a difference. The Global Burden analysis, echoing previous data, found that CRC is less common among women and that fewer women die from the disease.

Little, however, is known about the mechanisms of estrogen signaling in CRC or the impact of reproductive factors on CRC, despite a large amount of literature linking CRC risk to exogenous estrogens, such as hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives.

In the current analysis, the team recruited 2,650 patients with CRC from 20 German cancer centers between 2003 and 2020. Researchers used standardized questionnaires to garner the women’s reproductive histories.

A matched control group of 2,175 participants who did not have a history of CRC was randomly selected from population registries. All analyses were adjusted for known CRC risk factors, such as age; body mass index; education level; family history; having previously undergone large-bowel endoscopy; diabetes; and smoking status.

The researchers found that each pregnancy was associated with a small but significant 9% reduction in CRC risk (odds ratio, 0.91), specifically in the proximal colon (OR, 0.86).

Overall, breastfeeding for a year or longer was associated with a significantly lower CRC risk, compared with never breastfeeding (OR, 0.74), but the results were only significant for the proximal colon (OR, 0.58).

Oral contraceptive use for 9 years or longer was associated with a lower CRC risk (OR, 0.75) but was only significant for the distal colon (OR, 0.63). Hormone replacement therapy was associated with a lower risk of CRC irrespective of tumor location (OR, 0.76). And using both was linked to a 42% CRC risk reduction (OR, 0.58).

Although age at menarche was not associated with CRC risk, menopause at age 50 or older was associated with a significant 17% lower risk of CRC.

In an email interview, lead author Tobias Niedermaier, PhD, expressed surprise at two of the findings. The first was the small association between pregnancies and CRC risk, “despite the strong increase in estrogen levels during pregnancy,” he said. He speculated that pregnancy-related increases in insulin levels may have “largely offset the protection effects of estrogen exposure during pregnancy.”

The second surprise was that the age at menarche did not have a bearing on CRC risk, which could be because “exposure to estrogen levels in younger ages [is] less relevant with respect to CRC risk, because CRC typically develops at comparably old age.”

John Marshall, MD, who was not involved in the research, commented that such studies “put a lot of pressure on people to perform in a certain way to modify their personal risk of something.” However, “we would not recommend people alter their life choices for reproduction for this,” said Dr. Marshall, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Niedermaier agreed that “while this knowledge will certainly not change a woman’s decision on family planning,” he noted that the findings “could influence current CRC screening strategies, for example, by risk-adapted screening intervals [and] start and stop ages of screening.”

Dr. Niedermaier and colleagues’ work was funded by the German Research Council, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases. Dr. Niedermaier has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Marshall writes a column that appears regularly on Medscape: Marshall on Oncology. He has served as speaker or member of a speakers’ bureau for Genentech, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene Corporation, and Caris Life Sciences.

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

Estrogen exposure helps protect against colorectal cancer (CRC), and in some instances, the protection is site specific, a new analysis finds.

In a 17-year study involving almost 5,000 women, researchers from Germany found that hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause at age 50 or older were all significantly associated with reductions in CRC risk.

Interestingly, the reduced risk of CRC observed for pregnancy and breastfeeding only applied to proximal colon cancer, while the association with oral contraceptive use was confined to the distal colon and rectum.

The results were published online in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death. It is responsible for more than one million deaths globally, according to the latest figures from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration.

And sex seems to make a difference. The Global Burden analysis, echoing previous data, found that CRC is less common among women and that fewer women die from the disease.

Little, however, is known about the mechanisms of estrogen signaling in CRC or the impact of reproductive factors on CRC, despite a large amount of literature linking CRC risk to exogenous estrogens, such as hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives.

In the current analysis, the team recruited 2,650 patients with CRC from 20 German cancer centers between 2003 and 2020. Researchers used standardized questionnaires to garner the women’s reproductive histories.

A matched control group of 2,175 participants who did not have a history of CRC was randomly selected from population registries. All analyses were adjusted for known CRC risk factors, such as age; body mass index; education level; family history; having previously undergone large-bowel endoscopy; diabetes; and smoking status.

The researchers found that each pregnancy was associated with a small but significant 9% reduction in CRC risk (odds ratio, 0.91), specifically in the proximal colon (OR, 0.86).

Overall, breastfeeding for a year or longer was associated with a significantly lower CRC risk, compared with never breastfeeding (OR, 0.74), but the results were only significant for the proximal colon (OR, 0.58).

Oral contraceptive use for 9 years or longer was associated with a lower CRC risk (OR, 0.75) but was only significant for the distal colon (OR, 0.63). Hormone replacement therapy was associated with a lower risk of CRC irrespective of tumor location (OR, 0.76). And using both was linked to a 42% CRC risk reduction (OR, 0.58).

Although age at menarche was not associated with CRC risk, menopause at age 50 or older was associated with a significant 17% lower risk of CRC.

In an email interview, lead author Tobias Niedermaier, PhD, expressed surprise at two of the findings. The first was the small association between pregnancies and CRC risk, “despite the strong increase in estrogen levels during pregnancy,” he said. He speculated that pregnancy-related increases in insulin levels may have “largely offset the protection effects of estrogen exposure during pregnancy.”

The second surprise was that the age at menarche did not have a bearing on CRC risk, which could be because “exposure to estrogen levels in younger ages [is] less relevant with respect to CRC risk, because CRC typically develops at comparably old age.”

John Marshall, MD, who was not involved in the research, commented that such studies “put a lot of pressure on people to perform in a certain way to modify their personal risk of something.” However, “we would not recommend people alter their life choices for reproduction for this,” said Dr. Marshall, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Niedermaier agreed that “while this knowledge will certainly not change a woman’s decision on family planning,” he noted that the findings “could influence current CRC screening strategies, for example, by risk-adapted screening intervals [and] start and stop ages of screening.”

Dr. Niedermaier and colleagues’ work was funded by the German Research Council, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases. Dr. Niedermaier has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Marshall writes a column that appears regularly on Medscape: Marshall on Oncology. He has served as speaker or member of a speakers’ bureau for Genentech, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene Corporation, and Caris Life Sciences.

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

Estrogen exposure helps protect against colorectal cancer (CRC), and in some instances, the protection is site specific, a new analysis finds.

In a 17-year study involving almost 5,000 women, researchers from Germany found that hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause at age 50 or older were all significantly associated with reductions in CRC risk.

Interestingly, the reduced risk of CRC observed for pregnancy and breastfeeding only applied to proximal colon cancer, while the association with oral contraceptive use was confined to the distal colon and rectum.

The results were published online in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

CRC is the second most common cause of cancer death. It is responsible for more than one million deaths globally, according to the latest figures from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration.

And sex seems to make a difference. The Global Burden analysis, echoing previous data, found that CRC is less common among women and that fewer women die from the disease.

Little, however, is known about the mechanisms of estrogen signaling in CRC or the impact of reproductive factors on CRC, despite a large amount of literature linking CRC risk to exogenous estrogens, such as hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives.

In the current analysis, the team recruited 2,650 patients with CRC from 20 German cancer centers between 2003 and 2020. Researchers used standardized questionnaires to garner the women’s reproductive histories.

A matched control group of 2,175 participants who did not have a history of CRC was randomly selected from population registries. All analyses were adjusted for known CRC risk factors, such as age; body mass index; education level; family history; having previously undergone large-bowel endoscopy; diabetes; and smoking status.

The researchers found that each pregnancy was associated with a small but significant 9% reduction in CRC risk (odds ratio, 0.91), specifically in the proximal colon (OR, 0.86).

Overall, breastfeeding for a year or longer was associated with a significantly lower CRC risk, compared with never breastfeeding (OR, 0.74), but the results were only significant for the proximal colon (OR, 0.58).

Oral contraceptive use for 9 years or longer was associated with a lower CRC risk (OR, 0.75) but was only significant for the distal colon (OR, 0.63). Hormone replacement therapy was associated with a lower risk of CRC irrespective of tumor location (OR, 0.76). And using both was linked to a 42% CRC risk reduction (OR, 0.58).

Although age at menarche was not associated with CRC risk, menopause at age 50 or older was associated with a significant 17% lower risk of CRC.

In an email interview, lead author Tobias Niedermaier, PhD, expressed surprise at two of the findings. The first was the small association between pregnancies and CRC risk, “despite the strong increase in estrogen levels during pregnancy,” he said. He speculated that pregnancy-related increases in insulin levels may have “largely offset the protection effects of estrogen exposure during pregnancy.”

The second surprise was that the age at menarche did not have a bearing on CRC risk, which could be because “exposure to estrogen levels in younger ages [is] less relevant with respect to CRC risk, because CRC typically develops at comparably old age.”

John Marshall, MD, who was not involved in the research, commented that such studies “put a lot of pressure on people to perform in a certain way to modify their personal risk of something.” However, “we would not recommend people alter their life choices for reproduction for this,” said Dr. Marshall, chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Niedermaier agreed that “while this knowledge will certainly not change a woman’s decision on family planning,” he noted that the findings “could influence current CRC screening strategies, for example, by risk-adapted screening intervals [and] start and stop ages of screening.”

Dr. Niedermaier and colleagues’ work was funded by the German Research Council, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases. Dr. Niedermaier has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Marshall writes a column that appears regularly on Medscape: Marshall on Oncology. He has served as speaker or member of a speakers’ bureau for Genentech, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene Corporation, and Caris Life Sciences.

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

Medical management of early pregnancy loss costs less and offers similar quality of life to uterine aspiration, based on data from an analytical model.

Early pregnancy loss (EPL) occurs in more than 1 million women in the United States each year, and many patients are diagnosed before they show symptoms, wrote Divyah Nagendra, MD, of Cambridge Health Alliance, Mass., and colleagues.

A 2018 study showed that medical management of EPL with mifepristone added to misoprostol increased effectiveness and reduced the need for additional medication or subsequent uterine procedures, but the cost of mifepristone is perceived as a barrier, and the cost-effectiveness of its use, compared with surgical or expectant management, has not been well studied, the researchers noted.

“We already know that adding mifepristone to the medical management of early pregnancy loss increases the effectiveness of the regimen,” coauthor Courtney A. Schreiber, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Procedural uterine aspiration is highly effective as well, so patients and providers may consider the cost when deciding on a treatment strategy,” she added.

“If medication management is preferred by many patients, decreases the need to access in-person clinical care during a pandemic, and is found to be cost-effective, clinicians and policymakers should increase efforts to improve mifepristone availability and reduce access burdens,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers created a decision-analytic model using data from published literature and the Pregnancy Failure Regiments Trial (PreFaiR) to compare office-based uterine aspiration to medical management with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol for EPL.

The PrFaiR study randomized 300 women who experienced EPL before 12 weeks’ gestation to medication management with 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally, with or without pretreatment of 200 mg mifeprestone orally. The average age of the participants was 30.7 years, and demographics were similar between the groups.

The researchers used the PrFaiR data for medical management and patient-level data from published literature for uterine aspiration.

The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY was based on a modified utility score from the published literature. Effectiveness was based on QALY gained and the rate of complete expulsion of the gestational sac without additional intervention.

Overall, the mean costs per person were significantly higher for uterine aspiration, compared with medical management ($828 vs. $661, P = .004). Uterine aspiration was significantly more effective for complete gestational sac expulsion (97.3% vs. 83.8%, P = .0001). However, the QALYs were significantly higher for medical management, compared with uterine aspiration (0.082 vs. 0.079, P < .0001).

Cost-effectiveness was greater for medical management from a health care sector perspective, with lower costs and higher QALYs than uterine aspiration, the researchers noted.

They also evaluated the effect of mifepristone pretreatment on cost-effectiveness and found that medical management would remain cost effective, compared with uterine aspiration even if uterine aspiration procedures decreased in cost and mifepristone increased in cost, and even if medication management had a decreased completion rate and utility score, compared with uterine aspiration.

“Our analysis demonstrates that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for medical management is well below the maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $100,000 per QALY gained,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.
 

Potential savings, uncertain access

Despite the potential savings and patient benefits, access to mifepristone remains a barrier, the researchers said.

Although the FDA lifted some restrictions on mifepristone in 2021 in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the effect of new abortion-related restrictions remains to be seen.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 2018 National Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate costs, though actual costs vary by region and payer, the researchers noted. Other limitations include variations in cost of mifepristone by region and time and the differences in data sources between the uterine aspiration and medical management groups. More research is needed to assess QALYs for early pregnancy loss to establish standard measures and to assess the societal perspective of ESL as well as the health care perspective, they added.

However, the current results support medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol as a “high-value care alternative” to office-based uterine aspiration, they said. “Increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care,” they concluded.

“Given how effective procedural management is, we were slightly surprised that medical management remains cost effective,” Dr. Schreiber said in an interview.

Looking ahead in the wake of new restrictions on use for abortion, “patients may have difficulty accessing either medical or procedural management for early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Schreiber noted. “We support the accessibility of all evidence-based care and hope that our data will help overcome perceived financial barriers,” she said. Additional research needs include improved implementation and access to evidence-based early pregnancy loss care, she added.
 

Reasons to lift regulations

“Given the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, any medications that are associated with abortion have increased scrutiny, especially mifepristone and misoprostol, even though these medications are also used for managing early pregnancy loss,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Demonstrating that medication management of EPL with mifepristone/misoprostol is less expensive and has increased QALYs associated with it is yet another reason to deregulate mifepristone so it can also be more accessible for management of EPL,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings, as effective medication should be less expensive than a procedure. “I would caution that the increased QALYs found in this study should not be interpreted as a reason to restrict surgical management of EPL but to increase access also to medication management, even though medication has a slightly lower rate of complete gestational sac expulsion,” she noted. “Mode of management should be up to the patient, unless there is a clear medical reason for one or the other.”

Going forward, “the FDA has it in its power to remove the REMS, which would immediately make mifepristone a medication that can be prescribed through a pharmacy and therefore much more available,” said Dr. Prager. “Restrictions for both medication and surgical management of EPL will likely increase in states where abortion is illegal, and it could possibly lead to patients having less choice as to mode of management,” she explained.

“There are many studies showing that all modes of EPL management are safe and effective and should be supported with respect to patient choice,” Dr. Prager noted. “There are also substantial data supporting the overall safety of mifepristone, and there are no scientific or medical data suggesting the REMS increases safety in any way. Frankly, there are no good, evidence-based reasons to continue to keep the REMS in place,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health and a Society of Family Planning Research Fund Midcareer Mentor Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.

[email protected]

Medical management of early pregnancy loss costs less and offers similar quality of life to uterine aspiration, based on data from an analytical model.

Early pregnancy loss (EPL) occurs in more than 1 million women in the United States each year, and many patients are diagnosed before they show symptoms, wrote Divyah Nagendra, MD, of Cambridge Health Alliance, Mass., and colleagues.

A 2018 study showed that medical management of EPL with mifepristone added to misoprostol increased effectiveness and reduced the need for additional medication or subsequent uterine procedures, but the cost of mifepristone is perceived as a barrier, and the cost-effectiveness of its use, compared with surgical or expectant management, has not been well studied, the researchers noted.

“We already know that adding mifepristone to the medical management of early pregnancy loss increases the effectiveness of the regimen,” coauthor Courtney A. Schreiber, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Procedural uterine aspiration is highly effective as well, so patients and providers may consider the cost when deciding on a treatment strategy,” she added.

“If medication management is preferred by many patients, decreases the need to access in-person clinical care during a pandemic, and is found to be cost-effective, clinicians and policymakers should increase efforts to improve mifepristone availability and reduce access burdens,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers created a decision-analytic model using data from published literature and the Pregnancy Failure Regiments Trial (PreFaiR) to compare office-based uterine aspiration to medical management with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol for EPL.

The PrFaiR study randomized 300 women who experienced EPL before 12 weeks’ gestation to medication management with 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally, with or without pretreatment of 200 mg mifeprestone orally. The average age of the participants was 30.7 years, and demographics were similar between the groups.

The researchers used the PrFaiR data for medical management and patient-level data from published literature for uterine aspiration.

The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY was based on a modified utility score from the published literature. Effectiveness was based on QALY gained and the rate of complete expulsion of the gestational sac without additional intervention.

Overall, the mean costs per person were significantly higher for uterine aspiration, compared with medical management ($828 vs. $661, P = .004). Uterine aspiration was significantly more effective for complete gestational sac expulsion (97.3% vs. 83.8%, P = .0001). However, the QALYs were significantly higher for medical management, compared with uterine aspiration (0.082 vs. 0.079, P < .0001).

Cost-effectiveness was greater for medical management from a health care sector perspective, with lower costs and higher QALYs than uterine aspiration, the researchers noted.

They also evaluated the effect of mifepristone pretreatment on cost-effectiveness and found that medical management would remain cost effective, compared with uterine aspiration even if uterine aspiration procedures decreased in cost and mifepristone increased in cost, and even if medication management had a decreased completion rate and utility score, compared with uterine aspiration.

“Our analysis demonstrates that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for medical management is well below the maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $100,000 per QALY gained,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.
 

Potential savings, uncertain access

Despite the potential savings and patient benefits, access to mifepristone remains a barrier, the researchers said.

Although the FDA lifted some restrictions on mifepristone in 2021 in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the effect of new abortion-related restrictions remains to be seen.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 2018 National Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate costs, though actual costs vary by region and payer, the researchers noted. Other limitations include variations in cost of mifepristone by region and time and the differences in data sources between the uterine aspiration and medical management groups. More research is needed to assess QALYs for early pregnancy loss to establish standard measures and to assess the societal perspective of ESL as well as the health care perspective, they added.

However, the current results support medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol as a “high-value care alternative” to office-based uterine aspiration, they said. “Increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care,” they concluded.

“Given how effective procedural management is, we were slightly surprised that medical management remains cost effective,” Dr. Schreiber said in an interview.

Looking ahead in the wake of new restrictions on use for abortion, “patients may have difficulty accessing either medical or procedural management for early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Schreiber noted. “We support the accessibility of all evidence-based care and hope that our data will help overcome perceived financial barriers,” she said. Additional research needs include improved implementation and access to evidence-based early pregnancy loss care, she added.
 

Reasons to lift regulations

“Given the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, any medications that are associated with abortion have increased scrutiny, especially mifepristone and misoprostol, even though these medications are also used for managing early pregnancy loss,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Demonstrating that medication management of EPL with mifepristone/misoprostol is less expensive and has increased QALYs associated with it is yet another reason to deregulate mifepristone so it can also be more accessible for management of EPL,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings, as effective medication should be less expensive than a procedure. “I would caution that the increased QALYs found in this study should not be interpreted as a reason to restrict surgical management of EPL but to increase access also to medication management, even though medication has a slightly lower rate of complete gestational sac expulsion,” she noted. “Mode of management should be up to the patient, unless there is a clear medical reason for one or the other.”

Going forward, “the FDA has it in its power to remove the REMS, which would immediately make mifepristone a medication that can be prescribed through a pharmacy and therefore much more available,” said Dr. Prager. “Restrictions for both medication and surgical management of EPL will likely increase in states where abortion is illegal, and it could possibly lead to patients having less choice as to mode of management,” she explained.

“There are many studies showing that all modes of EPL management are safe and effective and should be supported with respect to patient choice,” Dr. Prager noted. “There are also substantial data supporting the overall safety of mifepristone, and there are no scientific or medical data suggesting the REMS increases safety in any way. Frankly, there are no good, evidence-based reasons to continue to keep the REMS in place,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health and a Society of Family Planning Research Fund Midcareer Mentor Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.

[email protected]

Medical management of early pregnancy loss costs less and offers similar quality of life to uterine aspiration, based on data from an analytical model.

Early pregnancy loss (EPL) occurs in more than 1 million women in the United States each year, and many patients are diagnosed before they show symptoms, wrote Divyah Nagendra, MD, of Cambridge Health Alliance, Mass., and colleagues.

A 2018 study showed that medical management of EPL with mifepristone added to misoprostol increased effectiveness and reduced the need for additional medication or subsequent uterine procedures, but the cost of mifepristone is perceived as a barrier, and the cost-effectiveness of its use, compared with surgical or expectant management, has not been well studied, the researchers noted.

“We already know that adding mifepristone to the medical management of early pregnancy loss increases the effectiveness of the regimen,” coauthor Courtney A. Schreiber, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Procedural uterine aspiration is highly effective as well, so patients and providers may consider the cost when deciding on a treatment strategy,” she added.

“If medication management is preferred by many patients, decreases the need to access in-person clinical care during a pandemic, and is found to be cost-effective, clinicians and policymakers should increase efforts to improve mifepristone availability and reduce access burdens,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers created a decision-analytic model using data from published literature and the Pregnancy Failure Regiments Trial (PreFaiR) to compare office-based uterine aspiration to medical management with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol for EPL.

The PrFaiR study randomized 300 women who experienced EPL before 12 weeks’ gestation to medication management with 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally, with or without pretreatment of 200 mg mifeprestone orally. The average age of the participants was 30.7 years, and demographics were similar between the groups.

The researchers used the PrFaiR data for medical management and patient-level data from published literature for uterine aspiration.

The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY was based on a modified utility score from the published literature. Effectiveness was based on QALY gained and the rate of complete expulsion of the gestational sac without additional intervention.

Overall, the mean costs per person were significantly higher for uterine aspiration, compared with medical management ($828 vs. $661, P = .004). Uterine aspiration was significantly more effective for complete gestational sac expulsion (97.3% vs. 83.8%, P = .0001). However, the QALYs were significantly higher for medical management, compared with uterine aspiration (0.082 vs. 0.079, P < .0001).

Cost-effectiveness was greater for medical management from a health care sector perspective, with lower costs and higher QALYs than uterine aspiration, the researchers noted.

They also evaluated the effect of mifepristone pretreatment on cost-effectiveness and found that medical management would remain cost effective, compared with uterine aspiration even if uterine aspiration procedures decreased in cost and mifepristone increased in cost, and even if medication management had a decreased completion rate and utility score, compared with uterine aspiration.

“Our analysis demonstrates that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for medical management is well below the maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $100,000 per QALY gained,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.
 

Potential savings, uncertain access

Despite the potential savings and patient benefits, access to mifepristone remains a barrier, the researchers said.

Although the FDA lifted some restrictions on mifepristone in 2021 in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the effect of new abortion-related restrictions remains to be seen.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 2018 National Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate costs, though actual costs vary by region and payer, the researchers noted. Other limitations include variations in cost of mifepristone by region and time and the differences in data sources between the uterine aspiration and medical management groups. More research is needed to assess QALYs for early pregnancy loss to establish standard measures and to assess the societal perspective of ESL as well as the health care perspective, they added.

However, the current results support medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol as a “high-value care alternative” to office-based uterine aspiration, they said. “Increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care,” they concluded.

“Given how effective procedural management is, we were slightly surprised that medical management remains cost effective,” Dr. Schreiber said in an interview.

Looking ahead in the wake of new restrictions on use for abortion, “patients may have difficulty accessing either medical or procedural management for early pregnancy loss,” Dr. Schreiber noted. “We support the accessibility of all evidence-based care and hope that our data will help overcome perceived financial barriers,” she said. Additional research needs include improved implementation and access to evidence-based early pregnancy loss care, she added.
 

Reasons to lift regulations

“Given the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, any medications that are associated with abortion have increased scrutiny, especially mifepristone and misoprostol, even though these medications are also used for managing early pregnancy loss,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Demonstrating that medication management of EPL with mifepristone/misoprostol is less expensive and has increased QALYs associated with it is yet another reason to deregulate mifepristone so it can also be more accessible for management of EPL,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings, as effective medication should be less expensive than a procedure. “I would caution that the increased QALYs found in this study should not be interpreted as a reason to restrict surgical management of EPL but to increase access also to medication management, even though medication has a slightly lower rate of complete gestational sac expulsion,” she noted. “Mode of management should be up to the patient, unless there is a clear medical reason for one or the other.”

Going forward, “the FDA has it in its power to remove the REMS, which would immediately make mifepristone a medication that can be prescribed through a pharmacy and therefore much more available,” said Dr. Prager. “Restrictions for both medication and surgical management of EPL will likely increase in states where abortion is illegal, and it could possibly lead to patients having less choice as to mode of management,” she explained.

“There are many studies showing that all modes of EPL management are safe and effective and should be supported with respect to patient choice,” Dr. Prager noted. “There are also substantial data supporting the overall safety of mifepristone, and there are no scientific or medical data suggesting the REMS increases safety in any way. Frankly, there are no good, evidence-based reasons to continue to keep the REMS in place,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health and a Society of Family Planning Research Fund Midcareer Mentor Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn. News.

[email protected]

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at [email protected] or via [email protected].

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

Pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appear to be at significantly increased risk of experiencing cardiac complications while hospitalized during and after delivery.

An estimated 5 million women of childbearing age in the United States have PCOS, a hormone disorder linked to infertility. PCOS is also known to contribute to the development of cardiometabolic abnormalities like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, which are associated with acute cardiovascular complications during delivery.

But a study, published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association, found that even after accounting for pre-eclampsia, age, comorbidities, and race, PCOS was linked to a 76% increased risk for heart failure, a 79% higher risk of a weakened heart, and an 82% increased risk of having blood clots in the hours and days around giving birth in hospital settings, compared with women without PCOS.

“Perhaps women need a closer follow-up during their pregnancy,” said Erin Michos, MD, MHS, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a co-author of the study. “They’re counseled about the difficulties of getting pregnant, but what about when they get pregnant?”

Hospitalizations of women with PCOS were also associated with longer stays (3 vs. 2 days) and higher costs ($4,901 vs. $3616; P < .01), compared with women without PCOS.

Over the 17-year analysis period, the number of women with PCOS rose from 569 per 100,000 deliveries to 15,349 per 100,000 deliveries. The researchers attributed the increase in part to greater awareness and diagnosis of the disorder. Dr. Michos and her colleagues used the National Inpatient Sample, managed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to pull claims data for women who gave birth in hospitals between 2002 and 2019.
 

Solutions?

Dr. Michos said there may be more prevention work from og.gyns. to both educate patients about their heart risks during the delivery process and also to refer them to relevant cardiac specialists.

“These women may seek out a gynecologist because of the symptoms, perhaps irregular menses, but along with that should come counseling of the long-term cardiovascular complication,” Dr. Michos said. “And after a pregnancy there should be a good handoff to a primary care provider, so they get a cardiovascular assessment.”

Lifestyle management before, during, and after pregnancy can help prevent the onset of the long-term consequences of cardiac complications during delivery, according to Valerie Baker, MD, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Hopkins Medicine, and her colleagues in a viewpoint published in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

“Once women with PCOS are identified by screening to be at higher risk for [cardiovascular disease], the foundational approach should be lifestyle management followed by statin therapy,” Dr. Baker’s group wrote. “These interventions should include dietary management and physical activity, especially for those who are prediabetic.”

The current study came on the heels of a June 14 meta-analysis by Dr. Michos’ group that found that women with PCOS may be twice as likely as those without PCOS to have coronary artery calcification, a precursor to atherosclerosis and a sign of the early onset of cardiovascular disease.

“We shouldn’t assume that all women of reproductive age are low risk,” Dr. Michos said. “This is the window of time that we can reshape the trajectory early in life.”

The study was supported by the Amato Fund for Women’s Cardiovascular Health research at Johns Hopkins University and through grant support from the American Heart Association (940166). Dr. Michos reported advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, and Pfizer. Study coauthor Michael Honigberg, MD, reported consulting fees from CRISPR Therapeutics, unrelated to the present work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appear to be at significantly increased risk of experiencing cardiac complications while hospitalized during and after delivery.

An estimated 5 million women of childbearing age in the United States have PCOS, a hormone disorder linked to infertility. PCOS is also known to contribute to the development of cardiometabolic abnormalities like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, which are associated with acute cardiovascular complications during delivery.

But a study, published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association, found that even after accounting for pre-eclampsia, age, comorbidities, and race, PCOS was linked to a 76% increased risk for heart failure, a 79% higher risk of a weakened heart, and an 82% increased risk of having blood clots in the hours and days around giving birth in hospital settings, compared with women without PCOS.

“Perhaps women need a closer follow-up during their pregnancy,” said Erin Michos, MD, MHS, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a co-author of the study. “They’re counseled about the difficulties of getting pregnant, but what about when they get pregnant?”

Hospitalizations of women with PCOS were also associated with longer stays (3 vs. 2 days) and higher costs ($4,901 vs. $3616; P < .01), compared with women without PCOS.

Over the 17-year analysis period, the number of women with PCOS rose from 569 per 100,000 deliveries to 15,349 per 100,000 deliveries. The researchers attributed the increase in part to greater awareness and diagnosis of the disorder. Dr. Michos and her colleagues used the National Inpatient Sample, managed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to pull claims data for women who gave birth in hospitals between 2002 and 2019.
 

Solutions?

Dr. Michos said there may be more prevention work from og.gyns. to both educate patients about their heart risks during the delivery process and also to refer them to relevant cardiac specialists.

“These women may seek out a gynecologist because of the symptoms, perhaps irregular menses, but along with that should come counseling of the long-term cardiovascular complication,” Dr. Michos said. “And after a pregnancy there should be a good handoff to a primary care provider, so they get a cardiovascular assessment.”

Lifestyle management before, during, and after pregnancy can help prevent the onset of the long-term consequences of cardiac complications during delivery, according to Valerie Baker, MD, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Hopkins Medicine, and her colleagues in a viewpoint published in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

“Once women with PCOS are identified by screening to be at higher risk for [cardiovascular disease], the foundational approach should be lifestyle management followed by statin therapy,” Dr. Baker’s group wrote. “These interventions should include dietary management and physical activity, especially for those who are prediabetic.”

The current study came on the heels of a June 14 meta-analysis by Dr. Michos’ group that found that women with PCOS may be twice as likely as those without PCOS to have coronary artery calcification, a precursor to atherosclerosis and a sign of the early onset of cardiovascular disease.

“We shouldn’t assume that all women of reproductive age are low risk,” Dr. Michos said. “This is the window of time that we can reshape the trajectory early in life.”

The study was supported by the Amato Fund for Women’s Cardiovascular Health research at Johns Hopkins University and through grant support from the American Heart Association (940166). Dr. Michos reported advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, and Pfizer. Study coauthor Michael Honigberg, MD, reported consulting fees from CRISPR Therapeutics, unrelated to the present work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appear to be at significantly increased risk of experiencing cardiac complications while hospitalized during and after delivery.

An estimated 5 million women of childbearing age in the United States have PCOS, a hormone disorder linked to infertility. PCOS is also known to contribute to the development of cardiometabolic abnormalities like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, which are associated with acute cardiovascular complications during delivery.

But a study, published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association, found that even after accounting for pre-eclampsia, age, comorbidities, and race, PCOS was linked to a 76% increased risk for heart failure, a 79% higher risk of a weakened heart, and an 82% increased risk of having blood clots in the hours and days around giving birth in hospital settings, compared with women without PCOS.

“Perhaps women need a closer follow-up during their pregnancy,” said Erin Michos, MD, MHS, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a co-author of the study. “They’re counseled about the difficulties of getting pregnant, but what about when they get pregnant?”

Hospitalizations of women with PCOS were also associated with longer stays (3 vs. 2 days) and higher costs ($4,901 vs. $3616; P < .01), compared with women without PCOS.

Over the 17-year analysis period, the number of women with PCOS rose from 569 per 100,000 deliveries to 15,349 per 100,000 deliveries. The researchers attributed the increase in part to greater awareness and diagnosis of the disorder. Dr. Michos and her colleagues used the National Inpatient Sample, managed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to pull claims data for women who gave birth in hospitals between 2002 and 2019.
 

Solutions?

Dr. Michos said there may be more prevention work from og.gyns. to both educate patients about their heart risks during the delivery process and also to refer them to relevant cardiac specialists.

“These women may seek out a gynecologist because of the symptoms, perhaps irregular menses, but along with that should come counseling of the long-term cardiovascular complication,” Dr. Michos said. “And after a pregnancy there should be a good handoff to a primary care provider, so they get a cardiovascular assessment.”

Lifestyle management before, during, and after pregnancy can help prevent the onset of the long-term consequences of cardiac complications during delivery, according to Valerie Baker, MD, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Hopkins Medicine, and her colleagues in a viewpoint published in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

“Once women with PCOS are identified by screening to be at higher risk for [cardiovascular disease], the foundational approach should be lifestyle management followed by statin therapy,” Dr. Baker’s group wrote. “These interventions should include dietary management and physical activity, especially for those who are prediabetic.”

The current study came on the heels of a June 14 meta-analysis by Dr. Michos’ group that found that women with PCOS may be twice as likely as those without PCOS to have coronary artery calcification, a precursor to atherosclerosis and a sign of the early onset of cardiovascular disease.

“We shouldn’t assume that all women of reproductive age are low risk,” Dr. Michos said. “This is the window of time that we can reshape the trajectory early in life.”

The study was supported by the Amato Fund for Women’s Cardiovascular Health research at Johns Hopkins University and through grant support from the American Heart Association (940166). Dr. Michos reported advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, and Pfizer. Study coauthor Michael Honigberg, MD, reported consulting fees from CRISPR Therapeutics, unrelated to the present work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.