MDedge ObGyn

Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, as well as in several other cancers, including oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and penile cancers. At least 13 HPV strains, known collectively as hrHPV, have been associated with cervical cancer, in addition to more than 150 low-risk HPV types that have not been associated with cancer (for example, HPV 6 and 11).¹ Up to 80% of women (and most men, although men are not tested routinely) will become infected with at least one of the high-risk HPV types throughout their lives, although in most cases these infections will be transient and have no clinical impact for the patient. Patients who test positive consecutively over time for hrHPV, and especially those who test positive for one of the most virulent HPV types (HPV 16 or 18), have a higher risk of developing cervical cancer or precancer. In addition, many patients who acquire HPV at a young age may “clear” the infection, which usually means that the virus becomes inactive; however, often, for unknown reasons, the virus can be reactivated in some women later in life.

This knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to cervical cancer prevention, which relies on a combined strategy that includes vaccinating as many children and young adults as possible against hrHPV, screening and triaging approaches that use HPV-based tests, and applying risk-based evaluation for abnormal screening results. New guidelines and information address the best approaches to each of these aspects of cervical cancer prevention, which we review here.

HPV vaccination: Recommendations and effect on cervical cancer rates

Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

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

Vaccination at ages 27 to 45, although approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is recommended only in a shared decision-making capacity by ACIP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) due to the vaccine’s minimal effect on cancer prevention in this age group. The ACIP and ACOG do not recommend catch-up vaccination for adults aged 27 to 45 years, but they recognize that some who are not adequately vaccinated might be at risk for new HPV infection and thus may benefit from vaccination.⁴

In contrast, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not endorse the 2019 ACIP recommendation for shared clinical decision making in 27- to 45-year-olds because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on selecting individuals who might benefit.⁵

Decline in HPV infections

A study in the United States between 2003 and 2014 showed a 71% decline in vaccine-type HPV infections among girls and women aged 14 to 19 in the post–vaccine available era as compared with the prevaccine era, and a lesser but still reasonable decline among women in the 20- to 24-year-old age group.⁶ Overall, vaccine-type HPV infections decreased 89% for vaccinated girls and 34% for unvaccinated girls, demonstrating some herd immunity.⁶ Ideally, the vaccine is given before the onset of skin-to-skin genital sexual activity. Many studies have found the vaccine to be safe and that immunogenicity is maintained for at least 9 years.^7-11

Decrease in invasive cervical cancer

Recently, Lei and colleagues published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed outcomes for more than 1.6 million girls and women vaccinated against HPV in Sweden between 2006 and 2017.¹² Among girls who were vaccinated at younger than 17 years of age, there were only 2 cases of cancer, in contrast to 17 cases among those vaccinated at age 17 to 30 and 538 cases among those not vaccinated.

This is the first study to show definitively the preventive effect of HPV vaccination on the development of invasive cancer and the tremendous advantage of vaccinating at a young age. Nonetheless, the advantage conferred by catch-up vaccination (that is, vaccinating those at ages 17–30) also was significant.

Continue to: Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women...

Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women

US Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Frist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686.

Fontham ET, Wolf AM, Church TR, et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:321-346.

As more is understood about the natural history of HPV and its role in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, refinements and updates have been made to our approaches for screening people at risk. There is much evidence and experience available on recommending Pap testing and HPV cotesting (testing for HPV along with cytology even if the cytology result is normal) among women aged 30 to 65 years, as that has been an option since the 2012 guidelines were published.¹⁵

We know also that HPV testing is more sensitive for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3) or greater at 5 years and that a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative Pap test.¹⁶

Primary HPV tests

HPV tests can be used in conjunction with cytology (that is, cotesting) or as a primary screening that if positive, can reflex either to cytology or to testing for the most oncogenic subtypes. Currently, only 2 FDA-approved primary screening tests are available, the cobas 4800 HPV test system (Roche Diagnostics) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company).¹⁷ Most laboratories in the United States do not yet have the technology for primary testing, and so instead they offer one of the remaining tests (Hybrid Capture 2 [Qiagen] and Cervista and Aptima [Hologic]), which do not necessarily have the same positive and negative predictive value as the tests specifically approved for primary testing. Thus, many clinicians and patients do not yet have access to primary HPV testing.

In addition, due to slow uptake of the HPV vaccine in many parts of the United States,¹³ there is concern that adding HPV testing in nonvaccinated women under age 30 would result in a surge of unnecessary colposcopy procedures for women with transient infections. Thus, several large expert organizations differ in opinion regarding screening among certain populations and by which test.

Screening guidance from national organizations

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) differ in their recommendations for screening women in their 20s for cervical cancer.^18,19 The USPSTF guidelines, which were published first, focus not only on the best test but also on what is feasible and likely to benefit public health, given our current testing capacity and vaccine coverage. The USPSTF recommends starting screening at age 21 with cytology and, if all results are normal, continuing every 3 years until age 30, at which point they recommend cytology every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years or primary HPV testing alone every 5 years (if all results are normal in each case).

In contrast, the ACS published "aspirational” guidelines, with the best evidence-based recommendations, but they acknowledge that due to availability of different testing options, some patients still need to be screened with existing modalities. The ACS recommends the onset of screening at age 25 with either primary HPV testing every 5 years (preferred) or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years.

Both the USPSTF and ACS guidelines state that if using cytology alone, the screening frequency should be every 3 years, and if using an HPV-based test, the screening interval (if all results are normal) can be extended to every 5 years.

Continue to: New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment...

New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment

Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131.

The ASCCP risk-based management guidelines introduce a paradigm shift from managing a specific cervical cancer screening result to using a clinical action threshold based on risk estimates that use both current and past test results to determine frequency and urgency of testing, management, and surveillance (FIGURE).²⁰ The individualized risk estimate helps to target prevention for those at highest risk while minimizing overtesting and overtreatment.

Estimating risk and determining management

The new risk-based management consensus guidelines use risk and clinical action thresholds to determine the appropriate management course for cervical screening abnormalities.²⁰ New data indicate that a patient’s risk of developing cervical precancer or cancer can be estimated using current screening results and previous screening test and biopsy results, while considering personal factors such as age and immunosuppression.²⁰ For each combination of current test results and screening history (including unknown history), the immediate and 5-year risk of CIN 3+ is estimated.

With respect to risk, the following concepts underlie the changes from the 2012 guidelines:

• Negative HPV tests reduce risk.
• Colposcopy performed for low-grade abnormalities, which confirms the absence of CIN 2+, reduces risk.
• A history of HPV-positive results increases risk.
• Prior treatment for CIN 2 or CIN 3 increases risk, and women with this history need to be followed closely for at least 25 years, regardless of age.

Once an individual’s risk is estimated, it is compared with 1 of the 6 proposed “clinical action thresholds”: treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/ biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, or 5-year return to regular screening (<0.15% 5-year CIN 3+ risk).

Key takeaways

Increasing knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to prevention, including the nonvalent HPV vaccine, which protects against 7 high-risk and 2 low-risk HPV types; specific screening guidelines that take into consideration age, immune status, and prior abnormality; and risk-based management guidelines that use both current and prior results as well as age to recommend the best approach for managing an abnormal result and providing surveillance after an abnormal result. ●

Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, as well as in several other cancers, including oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and penile cancers. At least 13 HPV strains, known collectively as hrHPV, have been associated with cervical cancer, in addition to more than 150 low-risk HPV types that have not been associated with cancer (for example, HPV 6 and 11).¹ Up to 80% of women (and most men, although men are not tested routinely) will become infected with at least one of the high-risk HPV types throughout their lives, although in most cases these infections will be transient and have no clinical impact for the patient. Patients who test positive consecutively over time for hrHPV, and especially those who test positive for one of the most virulent HPV types (HPV 16 or 18), have a higher risk of developing cervical cancer or precancer. In addition, many patients who acquire HPV at a young age may “clear” the infection, which usually means that the virus becomes inactive; however, often, for unknown reasons, the virus can be reactivated in some women later in life.

This knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to cervical cancer prevention, which relies on a combined strategy that includes vaccinating as many children and young adults as possible against hrHPV, screening and triaging approaches that use HPV-based tests, and applying risk-based evaluation for abnormal screening results. New guidelines and information address the best approaches to each of these aspects of cervical cancer prevention, which we review here.

HPV vaccination: Recommendations and effect on cervical cancer rates

Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

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

Vaccination at ages 27 to 45, although approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is recommended only in a shared decision-making capacity by ACIP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) due to the vaccine’s minimal effect on cancer prevention in this age group. The ACIP and ACOG do not recommend catch-up vaccination for adults aged 27 to 45 years, but they recognize that some who are not adequately vaccinated might be at risk for new HPV infection and thus may benefit from vaccination.⁴

In contrast, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not endorse the 2019 ACIP recommendation for shared clinical decision making in 27- to 45-year-olds because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on selecting individuals who might benefit.⁵

Decline in HPV infections

A study in the United States between 2003 and 2014 showed a 71% decline in vaccine-type HPV infections among girls and women aged 14 to 19 in the post–vaccine available era as compared with the prevaccine era, and a lesser but still reasonable decline among women in the 20- to 24-year-old age group.⁶ Overall, vaccine-type HPV infections decreased 89% for vaccinated girls and 34% for unvaccinated girls, demonstrating some herd immunity.⁶ Ideally, the vaccine is given before the onset of skin-to-skin genital sexual activity. Many studies have found the vaccine to be safe and that immunogenicity is maintained for at least 9 years.^7-11

Decrease in invasive cervical cancer

Recently, Lei and colleagues published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed outcomes for more than 1.6 million girls and women vaccinated against HPV in Sweden between 2006 and 2017.¹² Among girls who were vaccinated at younger than 17 years of age, there were only 2 cases of cancer, in contrast to 17 cases among those vaccinated at age 17 to 30 and 538 cases among those not vaccinated.

This is the first study to show definitively the preventive effect of HPV vaccination on the development of invasive cancer and the tremendous advantage of vaccinating at a young age. Nonetheless, the advantage conferred by catch-up vaccination (that is, vaccinating those at ages 17–30) also was significant.

Continue to: Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women...

Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women

US Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Frist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686.

Fontham ET, Wolf AM, Church TR, et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:321-346.

As more is understood about the natural history of HPV and its role in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, refinements and updates have been made to our approaches for screening people at risk. There is much evidence and experience available on recommending Pap testing and HPV cotesting (testing for HPV along with cytology even if the cytology result is normal) among women aged 30 to 65 years, as that has been an option since the 2012 guidelines were published.¹⁵

We know also that HPV testing is more sensitive for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3) or greater at 5 years and that a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative Pap test.¹⁶

Primary HPV tests

HPV tests can be used in conjunction with cytology (that is, cotesting) or as a primary screening that if positive, can reflex either to cytology or to testing for the most oncogenic subtypes. Currently, only 2 FDA-approved primary screening tests are available, the cobas 4800 HPV test system (Roche Diagnostics) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company).¹⁷ Most laboratories in the United States do not yet have the technology for primary testing, and so instead they offer one of the remaining tests (Hybrid Capture 2 [Qiagen] and Cervista and Aptima [Hologic]), which do not necessarily have the same positive and negative predictive value as the tests specifically approved for primary testing. Thus, many clinicians and patients do not yet have access to primary HPV testing.

In addition, due to slow uptake of the HPV vaccine in many parts of the United States,¹³ there is concern that adding HPV testing in nonvaccinated women under age 30 would result in a surge of unnecessary colposcopy procedures for women with transient infections. Thus, several large expert organizations differ in opinion regarding screening among certain populations and by which test.

Screening guidance from national organizations

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) differ in their recommendations for screening women in their 20s for cervical cancer.^18,19 The USPSTF guidelines, which were published first, focus not only on the best test but also on what is feasible and likely to benefit public health, given our current testing capacity and vaccine coverage. The USPSTF recommends starting screening at age 21 with cytology and, if all results are normal, continuing every 3 years until age 30, at which point they recommend cytology every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years or primary HPV testing alone every 5 years (if all results are normal in each case).

In contrast, the ACS published "aspirational” guidelines, with the best evidence-based recommendations, but they acknowledge that due to availability of different testing options, some patients still need to be screened with existing modalities. The ACS recommends the onset of screening at age 25 with either primary HPV testing every 5 years (preferred) or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years.

Both the USPSTF and ACS guidelines state that if using cytology alone, the screening frequency should be every 3 years, and if using an HPV-based test, the screening interval (if all results are normal) can be extended to every 5 years.

Continue to: New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment...

New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment

Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131.

The ASCCP risk-based management guidelines introduce a paradigm shift from managing a specific cervical cancer screening result to using a clinical action threshold based on risk estimates that use both current and past test results to determine frequency and urgency of testing, management, and surveillance (FIGURE).²⁰ The individualized risk estimate helps to target prevention for those at highest risk while minimizing overtesting and overtreatment.

Estimating risk and determining management

The new risk-based management consensus guidelines use risk and clinical action thresholds to determine the appropriate management course for cervical screening abnormalities.²⁰ New data indicate that a patient’s risk of developing cervical precancer or cancer can be estimated using current screening results and previous screening test and biopsy results, while considering personal factors such as age and immunosuppression.²⁰ For each combination of current test results and screening history (including unknown history), the immediate and 5-year risk of CIN 3+ is estimated.

With respect to risk, the following concepts underlie the changes from the 2012 guidelines:

• Negative HPV tests reduce risk.
• Colposcopy performed for low-grade abnormalities, which confirms the absence of CIN 2+, reduces risk.
• A history of HPV-positive results increases risk.
• Prior treatment for CIN 2 or CIN 3 increases risk, and women with this history need to be followed closely for at least 25 years, regardless of age.

Once an individual’s risk is estimated, it is compared with 1 of the 6 proposed “clinical action thresholds”: treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/ biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, or 5-year return to regular screening (<0.15% 5-year CIN 3+ risk).

Key takeaways

Increasing knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to prevention, including the nonvalent HPV vaccine, which protects against 7 high-risk and 2 low-risk HPV types; specific screening guidelines that take into consideration age, immune status, and prior abnormality; and risk-based management guidelines that use both current and prior results as well as age to recommend the best approach for managing an abnormal result and providing surveillance after an abnormal result. ●

Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is an essential step in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, as well as in several other cancers, including oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, anal, and penile cancers. At least 13 HPV strains, known collectively as hrHPV, have been associated with cervical cancer, in addition to more than 150 low-risk HPV types that have not been associated with cancer (for example, HPV 6 and 11).¹ Up to 80% of women (and most men, although men are not tested routinely) will become infected with at least one of the high-risk HPV types throughout their lives, although in most cases these infections will be transient and have no clinical impact for the patient. Patients who test positive consecutively over time for hrHPV, and especially those who test positive for one of the most virulent HPV types (HPV 16 or 18), have a higher risk of developing cervical cancer or precancer. In addition, many patients who acquire HPV at a young age may “clear” the infection, which usually means that the virus becomes inactive; however, often, for unknown reasons, the virus can be reactivated in some women later in life.

This knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to cervical cancer prevention, which relies on a combined strategy that includes vaccinating as many children and young adults as possible against hrHPV, screening and triaging approaches that use HPV-based tests, and applying risk-based evaluation for abnormal screening results. New guidelines and information address the best approaches to each of these aspects of cervical cancer prevention, which we review here.

HPV vaccination: Recommendations and effect on cervical cancer rates

Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

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

Vaccination at ages 27 to 45, although approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is recommended only in a shared decision-making capacity by ACIP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) due to the vaccine’s minimal effect on cancer prevention in this age group. The ACIP and ACOG do not recommend catch-up vaccination for adults aged 27 to 45 years, but they recognize that some who are not adequately vaccinated might be at risk for new HPV infection and thus may benefit from vaccination.⁴

In contrast, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not endorse the 2019 ACIP recommendation for shared clinical decision making in 27- to 45-year-olds because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on selecting individuals who might benefit.⁵

Decline in HPV infections

A study in the United States between 2003 and 2014 showed a 71% decline in vaccine-type HPV infections among girls and women aged 14 to 19 in the post–vaccine available era as compared with the prevaccine era, and a lesser but still reasonable decline among women in the 20- to 24-year-old age group.⁶ Overall, vaccine-type HPV infections decreased 89% for vaccinated girls and 34% for unvaccinated girls, demonstrating some herd immunity.⁶ Ideally, the vaccine is given before the onset of skin-to-skin genital sexual activity. Many studies have found the vaccine to be safe and that immunogenicity is maintained for at least 9 years.^7-11

Decrease in invasive cervical cancer

Recently, Lei and colleagues published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed outcomes for more than 1.6 million girls and women vaccinated against HPV in Sweden between 2006 and 2017.¹² Among girls who were vaccinated at younger than 17 years of age, there were only 2 cases of cancer, in contrast to 17 cases among those vaccinated at age 17 to 30 and 538 cases among those not vaccinated.

This is the first study to show definitively the preventive effect of HPV vaccination on the development of invasive cancer and the tremendous advantage of vaccinating at a young age. Nonetheless, the advantage conferred by catch-up vaccination (that is, vaccinating those at ages 17–30) also was significant.

Continue to: Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women...

Updated guidance on cervical cancer screening for average-risk women

US Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Frist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320:674-686.

Fontham ET, Wolf AM, Church TR, et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:321-346.

As more is understood about the natural history of HPV and its role in the development of cervical cancer and its precursors, refinements and updates have been made to our approaches for screening people at risk. There is much evidence and experience available on recommending Pap testing and HPV cotesting (testing for HPV along with cytology even if the cytology result is normal) among women aged 30 to 65 years, as that has been an option since the 2012 guidelines were published.¹⁵

We know also that HPV testing is more sensitive for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3) or greater at 5 years and that a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative Pap test.¹⁶

Primary HPV tests

HPV tests can be used in conjunction with cytology (that is, cotesting) or as a primary screening that if positive, can reflex either to cytology or to testing for the most oncogenic subtypes. Currently, only 2 FDA-approved primary screening tests are available, the cobas 4800 HPV test system (Roche Diagnostics) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company).¹⁷ Most laboratories in the United States do not yet have the technology for primary testing, and so instead they offer one of the remaining tests (Hybrid Capture 2 [Qiagen] and Cervista and Aptima [Hologic]), which do not necessarily have the same positive and negative predictive value as the tests specifically approved for primary testing. Thus, many clinicians and patients do not yet have access to primary HPV testing.

In addition, due to slow uptake of the HPV vaccine in many parts of the United States,¹³ there is concern that adding HPV testing in nonvaccinated women under age 30 would result in a surge of unnecessary colposcopy procedures for women with transient infections. Thus, several large expert organizations differ in opinion regarding screening among certain populations and by which test.

Screening guidance from national organizations

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) differ in their recommendations for screening women in their 20s for cervical cancer.^18,19 The USPSTF guidelines, which were published first, focus not only on the best test but also on what is feasible and likely to benefit public health, given our current testing capacity and vaccine coverage. The USPSTF recommends starting screening at age 21 with cytology and, if all results are normal, continuing every 3 years until age 30, at which point they recommend cytology every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years or primary HPV testing alone every 5 years (if all results are normal in each case).

In contrast, the ACS published "aspirational” guidelines, with the best evidence-based recommendations, but they acknowledge that due to availability of different testing options, some patients still need to be screened with existing modalities. The ACS recommends the onset of screening at age 25 with either primary HPV testing every 5 years (preferred) or cotesting every 5 years or cytology every 3 years.

Both the USPSTF and ACS guidelines state that if using cytology alone, the screening frequency should be every 3 years, and if using an HPV-based test, the screening interval (if all results are normal) can be extended to every 5 years.

Continue to: New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment...

New ASCCP management guidelines focus on individualized risk assessment

Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131.

The ASCCP risk-based management guidelines introduce a paradigm shift from managing a specific cervical cancer screening result to using a clinical action threshold based on risk estimates that use both current and past test results to determine frequency and urgency of testing, management, and surveillance (FIGURE).²⁰ The individualized risk estimate helps to target prevention for those at highest risk while minimizing overtesting and overtreatment.

Estimating risk and determining management

The new risk-based management consensus guidelines use risk and clinical action thresholds to determine the appropriate management course for cervical screening abnormalities.²⁰ New data indicate that a patient’s risk of developing cervical precancer or cancer can be estimated using current screening results and previous screening test and biopsy results, while considering personal factors such as age and immunosuppression.²⁰ For each combination of current test results and screening history (including unknown history), the immediate and 5-year risk of CIN 3+ is estimated.

With respect to risk, the following concepts underlie the changes from the 2012 guidelines:

• Negative HPV tests reduce risk.
• Colposcopy performed for low-grade abnormalities, which confirms the absence of CIN 2+, reduces risk.
• A history of HPV-positive results increases risk.
• Prior treatment for CIN 2 or CIN 3 increases risk, and women with this history need to be followed closely for at least 25 years, regardless of age.

Once an individual’s risk is estimated, it is compared with 1 of the 6 proposed “clinical action thresholds”: treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/ biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, or 5-year return to regular screening (<0.15% 5-year CIN 3+ risk).

Key takeaways

Increasing knowledge of the natural history of HPV has led to improved approaches to prevention, including the nonvalent HPV vaccine, which protects against 7 high-risk and 2 low-risk HPV types; specific screening guidelines that take into consideration age, immune status, and prior abnormality; and risk-based management guidelines that use both current and prior results as well as age to recommend the best approach for managing an abnormal result and providing surveillance after an abnormal result. ●

CASE 34-year-old woman with lipid panel results from 1 year ago

A woman with no chronic medical conditions was seen by her gynecologist for a routine well-woman examination. She does not see another primary care provider. She is age 34 years and has a levonorgestrel intrauterine device that was placed after the birth of her second child 2 years prior. She does not take any other medications. She has never smoked and drinks a glass of wine with dinner a couple of times each week. She finds it challenging with her full-time job and her parental responsibilities with 2 young children to get regular exercise but otherwise is active. She does not have a family history of premature cardiovascular disease. Last year, during her prior well-woman examination, she had a fasting lipid panel: her low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was 102 mg/dL (reference range, ≤160 mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) 52 mg/dL (reference range, ≥40 mg/dL), triglycerides 140 mg/dL (reference range, <160 mg/dL), and total cholesterol 182 mg/dL (reference range, <200 mg/dL).

During this visit, the patient’s vitals are normal (blood pressure 116/58) and her physical examination is unremarkable. Her physician orders routine labs to be checked, including a fasting lipid panel. She has to figure out when she will be able to get these labs drawn, as she needs to coordinate with her work and childcare schedules. A week later, she leaves work at 4:00 PM and picks up her young children (aged 2 and 4 years) from childcare, bringing them to the laboratory to have her blood drawn. Not only are her children cranky in the waiting room, but she is feeling tired as she hasn’t eaten all day because her physician told her she is supposed to be fasting. She has to pay for parking at the lot for the laboratory since it is connected to the medical center.

Was this lipid panel high value?

When and how often should we be checking lipid panels?

Do patients need to fast for these tests?
 

The potential benefits and costs of routine lipid panel screening

Hyperlipidemia is relatively prevalent, usually asymptomatic, and has been linked to cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, screening for lipid abnormalities is recommended to identify patients that would benefit from various interventions aimed at reducing cardiovascular disease risk, including lipid-lowering therapy.¹ High levels of LDL cholesterol and low levels of HDL cholesterol are important risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Lipid panels are widely available blood tests with modest monetary costs, generally ranging from about $10 to $100 in the outpatient setting. Of note, a 2014 study examining inpatient charges for this common laboratory test found that hospital charges in California ranged from about $10 to $10,000 for a lipid panel.² Despite the relatively low cost of each individual lipid panel, the aggregate costs to the health system of these frequently and widely performed tests are large. In fact, low-cost, high-volume health services, such as repeat cholesterol testing, account for the majority of unnecessary health spending in the United States, contributing nearly twice as much unnecessary cost as high-priced low-value services.³

To the patient, the cost is not only monetary. Some patients will need to take an additional hour or two off work as well as consider childcare, transportation, parking, and other mundane logistics to sit in a laboratory waiting room—a cost that may not be considered modest at all by the patient.^4,5

Therefore, like most services in health care, the answer to whether or not a lipid panel is high-value care is: it depends.⁵ In the correct circumstances, the test generally is regarded as high value due to well-documented potential benefits and low monetary costs. However, when performed unnecessarily—either in patient groups that are unlikely to benefit or at intervals that are too soon to add helpful information—then all that is left are the financial and psychosocial costs, which make this a low-value test in these scenarios. For this patient, this test contributed to inconvenience and mild hardships with essentially no benefit, thus would be considered low-value care.

Continue to: When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

There are conflicting guidelines and opinions about at what age lipid screening should be routinely performed in adults. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2016 guidelines found “insufficient evidence that screening for dyslipidemia before age 40 years has an effect on either short- or longer-term cardiovascular outcomes.”⁶ Therefore, the USPSTF “recommends neither for nor against screening for dyslipidemia in this age group,” and instead encourages “clinicians to use their clinical judgment for [these] patients.”⁶

A common practice is to obtain a baseline lipid profile at the time of initiation of care with an adult primary care practitioner, if the patient was not previously screened, and to then determine subsequent testing based on these results and the patient’s risk factors for cardiovascular disease. For patients with normal lipid screening results and lower cardiovascular risk factors (no hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cigarette smoking, family history of premature coronary heart disease), experts suggest follow-up lipid screening be performed in men at age 35 and in women at age 45.⁷ Therefore, for this patient who had essentially a normal lipid panel a year prior, she should not have required repeat lipid testing until she is age 45.

As for how frequently subsequent lipid testing should be performed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states, “most healthy adults should have their cholesterol checked every 4 to 6 years.”⁸ Those taking lipid-lowering medications or those with risk factors such as heart disease, diabetes, or concerning family history should have their cholesterol checked more frequently. If patients are near a threshold for treatment, some experts suggest repeating measurements every 3 years, but even in these settings, annual testing would be considered excessive.⁷

A standard lipid panel screen includes total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides. While a variety of assays have been developed that subfractionate lipoprotein particles based on size, density, or charge, these tests do not add value for low-risk patient screening and should only be used on an individualized basis for selected intermediate to high-risk patients. The American Society for Clinical Pathology released a Choosing Wisely recommendation that advises, “Do not routinely order expanded lipid panels (particle sizing, nuclear magnetic resonance) as screening tests for cardiovascular disease.”⁹

Do lipid panels need to be fasting?

For adults who are not taking lipid-lowering therapy, measurement of either a fasting or a nonfasting plasma lipid profile is effective for documenting baseline LDL and estimating cardiovascular risk.¹ In other words, nonfasting lipid testing is appropriate for most low-risk screening. Nonfasting testing generally is more convenient for patients; however, nonfasting lipid panels could result in elevated triglyceride levels. If an initial nonfasting lipid profile reveals a triglyceride level of 400 mg/dL or higher, then a repeat lipid profile in the fasting state should be performed for assessment of fasting triglyceride levels and baseline LDL.¹ Some patients may prefer to simply get a fasting lipid panel initially so that they do not run the risk of having to return for a second test, especially if they are at increased risk for high triglyceride levels (ie, if they are obese, have diabetes, or are taking medications such as steroids, which can increase triglyceride levels).

The bottom line

Some patients receive primary care directly from their gynecologist, and thus it is important for women’s health clinicians to be aware of appropriate cholesterol screening practices. While lipid panels may commonly be ordered routinely as part of annual health check-ups, the evidence suggests that this is an unnecessary practice that contributes to wasteful health spending at both individual and system levels; it also is an avoidable inconvenience for patients. It is unclear when lipid screening should be initiated for adult patients, but it seems reasonable to check baseline levels for a new patient who has not previously been screened. In low-risk patients with normal lipid panel levels, experts recommend initiating retesting at age 45 for women and obtaining repeat lipid levels no more than every 4 to 6 years. For most patients, nonfasting lipid levels will suffice for screening. Avoiding common unnecessary testing is an effective way to improve value for patients. ●

CASE 34-year-old woman with lipid panel results from 1 year ago

A woman with no chronic medical conditions was seen by her gynecologist for a routine well-woman examination. She does not see another primary care provider. She is age 34 years and has a levonorgestrel intrauterine device that was placed after the birth of her second child 2 years prior. She does not take any other medications. She has never smoked and drinks a glass of wine with dinner a couple of times each week. She finds it challenging with her full-time job and her parental responsibilities with 2 young children to get regular exercise but otherwise is active. She does not have a family history of premature cardiovascular disease. Last year, during her prior well-woman examination, she had a fasting lipid panel: her low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was 102 mg/dL (reference range, ≤160 mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) 52 mg/dL (reference range, ≥40 mg/dL), triglycerides 140 mg/dL (reference range, <160 mg/dL), and total cholesterol 182 mg/dL (reference range, <200 mg/dL).

During this visit, the patient’s vitals are normal (blood pressure 116/58) and her physical examination is unremarkable. Her physician orders routine labs to be checked, including a fasting lipid panel. She has to figure out when she will be able to get these labs drawn, as she needs to coordinate with her work and childcare schedules. A week later, she leaves work at 4:00 PM and picks up her young children (aged 2 and 4 years) from childcare, bringing them to the laboratory to have her blood drawn. Not only are her children cranky in the waiting room, but she is feeling tired as she hasn’t eaten all day because her physician told her she is supposed to be fasting. She has to pay for parking at the lot for the laboratory since it is connected to the medical center.

Was this lipid panel high value?

When and how often should we be checking lipid panels?

Do patients need to fast for these tests?
 

The potential benefits and costs of routine lipid panel screening

Hyperlipidemia is relatively prevalent, usually asymptomatic, and has been linked to cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, screening for lipid abnormalities is recommended to identify patients that would benefit from various interventions aimed at reducing cardiovascular disease risk, including lipid-lowering therapy.¹ High levels of LDL cholesterol and low levels of HDL cholesterol are important risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Lipid panels are widely available blood tests with modest monetary costs, generally ranging from about $10 to $100 in the outpatient setting. Of note, a 2014 study examining inpatient charges for this common laboratory test found that hospital charges in California ranged from about $10 to $10,000 for a lipid panel.² Despite the relatively low cost of each individual lipid panel, the aggregate costs to the health system of these frequently and widely performed tests are large. In fact, low-cost, high-volume health services, such as repeat cholesterol testing, account for the majority of unnecessary health spending in the United States, contributing nearly twice as much unnecessary cost as high-priced low-value services.³

To the patient, the cost is not only monetary. Some patients will need to take an additional hour or two off work as well as consider childcare, transportation, parking, and other mundane logistics to sit in a laboratory waiting room—a cost that may not be considered modest at all by the patient.^4,5

Therefore, like most services in health care, the answer to whether or not a lipid panel is high-value care is: it depends.⁵ In the correct circumstances, the test generally is regarded as high value due to well-documented potential benefits and low monetary costs. However, when performed unnecessarily—either in patient groups that are unlikely to benefit or at intervals that are too soon to add helpful information—then all that is left are the financial and psychosocial costs, which make this a low-value test in these scenarios. For this patient, this test contributed to inconvenience and mild hardships with essentially no benefit, thus would be considered low-value care.

Continue to: When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

There are conflicting guidelines and opinions about at what age lipid screening should be routinely performed in adults. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2016 guidelines found “insufficient evidence that screening for dyslipidemia before age 40 years has an effect on either short- or longer-term cardiovascular outcomes.”⁶ Therefore, the USPSTF “recommends neither for nor against screening for dyslipidemia in this age group,” and instead encourages “clinicians to use their clinical judgment for [these] patients.”⁶

A common practice is to obtain a baseline lipid profile at the time of initiation of care with an adult primary care practitioner, if the patient was not previously screened, and to then determine subsequent testing based on these results and the patient’s risk factors for cardiovascular disease. For patients with normal lipid screening results and lower cardiovascular risk factors (no hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cigarette smoking, family history of premature coronary heart disease), experts suggest follow-up lipid screening be performed in men at age 35 and in women at age 45.⁷ Therefore, for this patient who had essentially a normal lipid panel a year prior, she should not have required repeat lipid testing until she is age 45.

As for how frequently subsequent lipid testing should be performed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states, “most healthy adults should have their cholesterol checked every 4 to 6 years.”⁸ Those taking lipid-lowering medications or those with risk factors such as heart disease, diabetes, or concerning family history should have their cholesterol checked more frequently. If patients are near a threshold for treatment, some experts suggest repeating measurements every 3 years, but even in these settings, annual testing would be considered excessive.⁷

A standard lipid panel screen includes total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides. While a variety of assays have been developed that subfractionate lipoprotein particles based on size, density, or charge, these tests do not add value for low-risk patient screening and should only be used on an individualized basis for selected intermediate to high-risk patients. The American Society for Clinical Pathology released a Choosing Wisely recommendation that advises, “Do not routinely order expanded lipid panels (particle sizing, nuclear magnetic resonance) as screening tests for cardiovascular disease.”⁹

Do lipid panels need to be fasting?

For adults who are not taking lipid-lowering therapy, measurement of either a fasting or a nonfasting plasma lipid profile is effective for documenting baseline LDL and estimating cardiovascular risk.¹ In other words, nonfasting lipid testing is appropriate for most low-risk screening. Nonfasting testing generally is more convenient for patients; however, nonfasting lipid panels could result in elevated triglyceride levels. If an initial nonfasting lipid profile reveals a triglyceride level of 400 mg/dL or higher, then a repeat lipid profile in the fasting state should be performed for assessment of fasting triglyceride levels and baseline LDL.¹ Some patients may prefer to simply get a fasting lipid panel initially so that they do not run the risk of having to return for a second test, especially if they are at increased risk for high triglyceride levels (ie, if they are obese, have diabetes, or are taking medications such as steroids, which can increase triglyceride levels).

The bottom line

Some patients receive primary care directly from their gynecologist, and thus it is important for women’s health clinicians to be aware of appropriate cholesterol screening practices. While lipid panels may commonly be ordered routinely as part of annual health check-ups, the evidence suggests that this is an unnecessary practice that contributes to wasteful health spending at both individual and system levels; it also is an avoidable inconvenience for patients. It is unclear when lipid screening should be initiated for adult patients, but it seems reasonable to check baseline levels for a new patient who has not previously been screened. In low-risk patients with normal lipid panel levels, experts recommend initiating retesting at age 45 for women and obtaining repeat lipid levels no more than every 4 to 6 years. For most patients, nonfasting lipid levels will suffice for screening. Avoiding common unnecessary testing is an effective way to improve value for patients. ●

CASE 34-year-old woman with lipid panel results from 1 year ago

A woman with no chronic medical conditions was seen by her gynecologist for a routine well-woman examination. She does not see another primary care provider. She is age 34 years and has a levonorgestrel intrauterine device that was placed after the birth of her second child 2 years prior. She does not take any other medications. She has never smoked and drinks a glass of wine with dinner a couple of times each week. She finds it challenging with her full-time job and her parental responsibilities with 2 young children to get regular exercise but otherwise is active. She does not have a family history of premature cardiovascular disease. Last year, during her prior well-woman examination, she had a fasting lipid panel: her low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was 102 mg/dL (reference range, ≤160 mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) 52 mg/dL (reference range, ≥40 mg/dL), triglycerides 140 mg/dL (reference range, <160 mg/dL), and total cholesterol 182 mg/dL (reference range, <200 mg/dL).

During this visit, the patient’s vitals are normal (blood pressure 116/58) and her physical examination is unremarkable. Her physician orders routine labs to be checked, including a fasting lipid panel. She has to figure out when she will be able to get these labs drawn, as she needs to coordinate with her work and childcare schedules. A week later, she leaves work at 4:00 PM and picks up her young children (aged 2 and 4 years) from childcare, bringing them to the laboratory to have her blood drawn. Not only are her children cranky in the waiting room, but she is feeling tired as she hasn’t eaten all day because her physician told her she is supposed to be fasting. She has to pay for parking at the lot for the laboratory since it is connected to the medical center.

Was this lipid panel high value?

When and how often should we be checking lipid panels?

Do patients need to fast for these tests?
 

The potential benefits and costs of routine lipid panel screening

Hyperlipidemia is relatively prevalent, usually asymptomatic, and has been linked to cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, screening for lipid abnormalities is recommended to identify patients that would benefit from various interventions aimed at reducing cardiovascular disease risk, including lipid-lowering therapy.¹ High levels of LDL cholesterol and low levels of HDL cholesterol are important risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Lipid panels are widely available blood tests with modest monetary costs, generally ranging from about $10 to $100 in the outpatient setting. Of note, a 2014 study examining inpatient charges for this common laboratory test found that hospital charges in California ranged from about $10 to $10,000 for a lipid panel.² Despite the relatively low cost of each individual lipid panel, the aggregate costs to the health system of these frequently and widely performed tests are large. In fact, low-cost, high-volume health services, such as repeat cholesterol testing, account for the majority of unnecessary health spending in the United States, contributing nearly twice as much unnecessary cost as high-priced low-value services.³

To the patient, the cost is not only monetary. Some patients will need to take an additional hour or two off work as well as consider childcare, transportation, parking, and other mundane logistics to sit in a laboratory waiting room—a cost that may not be considered modest at all by the patient.^4,5

Therefore, like most services in health care, the answer to whether or not a lipid panel is high-value care is: it depends.⁵ In the correct circumstances, the test generally is regarded as high value due to well-documented potential benefits and low monetary costs. However, when performed unnecessarily—either in patient groups that are unlikely to benefit or at intervals that are too soon to add helpful information—then all that is left are the financial and psychosocial costs, which make this a low-value test in these scenarios. For this patient, this test contributed to inconvenience and mild hardships with essentially no benefit, thus would be considered low-value care.

Continue to: When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

When should we perform lipid screening in low-risk women?

There are conflicting guidelines and opinions about at what age lipid screening should be routinely performed in adults. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2016 guidelines found “insufficient evidence that screening for dyslipidemia before age 40 years has an effect on either short- or longer-term cardiovascular outcomes.”⁶ Therefore, the USPSTF “recommends neither for nor against screening for dyslipidemia in this age group,” and instead encourages “clinicians to use their clinical judgment for [these] patients.”⁶

A common practice is to obtain a baseline lipid profile at the time of initiation of care with an adult primary care practitioner, if the patient was not previously screened, and to then determine subsequent testing based on these results and the patient’s risk factors for cardiovascular disease. For patients with normal lipid screening results and lower cardiovascular risk factors (no hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cigarette smoking, family history of premature coronary heart disease), experts suggest follow-up lipid screening be performed in men at age 35 and in women at age 45.⁷ Therefore, for this patient who had essentially a normal lipid panel a year prior, she should not have required repeat lipid testing until she is age 45.

As for how frequently subsequent lipid testing should be performed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states, “most healthy adults should have their cholesterol checked every 4 to 6 years.”⁸ Those taking lipid-lowering medications or those with risk factors such as heart disease, diabetes, or concerning family history should have their cholesterol checked more frequently. If patients are near a threshold for treatment, some experts suggest repeating measurements every 3 years, but even in these settings, annual testing would be considered excessive.⁷

A standard lipid panel screen includes total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides. While a variety of assays have been developed that subfractionate lipoprotein particles based on size, density, or charge, these tests do not add value for low-risk patient screening and should only be used on an individualized basis for selected intermediate to high-risk patients. The American Society for Clinical Pathology released a Choosing Wisely recommendation that advises, “Do not routinely order expanded lipid panels (particle sizing, nuclear magnetic resonance) as screening tests for cardiovascular disease.”⁹

Do lipid panels need to be fasting?

For adults who are not taking lipid-lowering therapy, measurement of either a fasting or a nonfasting plasma lipid profile is effective for documenting baseline LDL and estimating cardiovascular risk.¹ In other words, nonfasting lipid testing is appropriate for most low-risk screening. Nonfasting testing generally is more convenient for patients; however, nonfasting lipid panels could result in elevated triglyceride levels. If an initial nonfasting lipid profile reveals a triglyceride level of 400 mg/dL or higher, then a repeat lipid profile in the fasting state should be performed for assessment of fasting triglyceride levels and baseline LDL.¹ Some patients may prefer to simply get a fasting lipid panel initially so that they do not run the risk of having to return for a second test, especially if they are at increased risk for high triglyceride levels (ie, if they are obese, have diabetes, or are taking medications such as steroids, which can increase triglyceride levels).

The bottom line

Some patients receive primary care directly from their gynecologist, and thus it is important for women’s health clinicians to be aware of appropriate cholesterol screening practices. While lipid panels may commonly be ordered routinely as part of annual health check-ups, the evidence suggests that this is an unnecessary practice that contributes to wasteful health spending at both individual and system levels; it also is an avoidable inconvenience for patients. It is unclear when lipid screening should be initiated for adult patients, but it seems reasonable to check baseline levels for a new patient who has not previously been screened. In low-risk patients with normal lipid panel levels, experts recommend initiating retesting at age 45 for women and obtaining repeat lipid levels no more than every 4 to 6 years. For most patients, nonfasting lipid levels will suffice for screening. Avoiding common unnecessary testing is an effective way to improve value for patients. ●

Gray KJ, Bordt EA, Atyeo C, et al. COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00187-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.023

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pregnant women are among those at highest risk for severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials has made counseling these patients challenging due to both the novelty of the vaccines themselves and the general lack of data in this vulnerable population. Data for the efficacy and risks of vaccination are needed to inform shared decision making between clinician and patient.

Details of the study

Gray and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 84 pregnant, 31 lactating, and 16 nonpregnant women who received 1 of the 2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech or mRNA-1273 Moderna). The study’s primary objective was to evaluate the humoral immune response (antibody quantification) and adverse effects of these vaccines in the pregnant and lactating women compared with both nonpregnant women and a cohort of 37 women who had natural COVID-19 infection during pregnancy.

Antibody quantification from blood and breast milk was performed at 4 time points: V0, the first vaccine dose; V1, the second vaccine dose; V2, 2 to 6 weeks after the second vaccine dose; and at delivery. Umbilical cord blood also was collected from the subset of delivered patients (n = 13).

Results. The ultimately IgG-dominated antibody response to the vaccine in pregnant and lactating women was comparable to that in nonpregnant women, and all vaccine antibody responses were significantly higher than that in response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgG antibodies also were found in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, supporting the transfer of immunity to both the fetus and infant. There were no significant differences in adverse effects between pregnant and nonpregnant women.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s main strength is that it demonstrated a similar increase in humoral immune response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a previously unstudied population of pregnant and lactating women, supporting the potential efficacy of the vaccines in this group at high risk for complications from SARS-CoV-2. Other data to support this include the increased vaccine antibody response compared with the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women as well as the presence of maternal-infant transfer of antibodies via cord blood and breast milk. All of these are important data to inform patients and practitioners who are trying to make shared, informed decisions about a novel vaccine during a global pandemic.

The main limitation of this study is a limited patient population of mostly White, non-Hispanic, health care workers with few comorbidities and only 13 delivered vaccinated patients within the study period. Long-term immunity, immune responses other than antibody titers, and potential fetal effects also were not explored in this study. ●

Gray KJ, Bordt EA, Atyeo C, et al. COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00187-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.023

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pregnant women are among those at highest risk for severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials has made counseling these patients challenging due to both the novelty of the vaccines themselves and the general lack of data in this vulnerable population. Data for the efficacy and risks of vaccination are needed to inform shared decision making between clinician and patient.

Details of the study

Gray and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 84 pregnant, 31 lactating, and 16 nonpregnant women who received 1 of the 2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech or mRNA-1273 Moderna). The study’s primary objective was to evaluate the humoral immune response (antibody quantification) and adverse effects of these vaccines in the pregnant and lactating women compared with both nonpregnant women and a cohort of 37 women who had natural COVID-19 infection during pregnancy.

Antibody quantification from blood and breast milk was performed at 4 time points: V0, the first vaccine dose; V1, the second vaccine dose; V2, 2 to 6 weeks after the second vaccine dose; and at delivery. Umbilical cord blood also was collected from the subset of delivered patients (n = 13).

Results. The ultimately IgG-dominated antibody response to the vaccine in pregnant and lactating women was comparable to that in nonpregnant women, and all vaccine antibody responses were significantly higher than that in response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgG antibodies also were found in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, supporting the transfer of immunity to both the fetus and infant. There were no significant differences in adverse effects between pregnant and nonpregnant women.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s main strength is that it demonstrated a similar increase in humoral immune response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a previously unstudied population of pregnant and lactating women, supporting the potential efficacy of the vaccines in this group at high risk for complications from SARS-CoV-2. Other data to support this include the increased vaccine antibody response compared with the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women as well as the presence of maternal-infant transfer of antibodies via cord blood and breast milk. All of these are important data to inform patients and practitioners who are trying to make shared, informed decisions about a novel vaccine during a global pandemic.

The main limitation of this study is a limited patient population of mostly White, non-Hispanic, health care workers with few comorbidities and only 13 delivered vaccinated patients within the study period. Long-term immunity, immune responses other than antibody titers, and potential fetal effects also were not explored in this study. ●

Gray KJ, Bordt EA, Atyeo C, et al. COVID-19 vaccine response in pregnant and lactating women: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;S0002-9378(21)00187-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.023

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pregnant women are among those at highest risk for severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials has made counseling these patients challenging due to both the novelty of the vaccines themselves and the general lack of data in this vulnerable population. Data for the efficacy and risks of vaccination are needed to inform shared decision making between clinician and patient.

Details of the study

Gray and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 84 pregnant, 31 lactating, and 16 nonpregnant women who received 1 of the 2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech or mRNA-1273 Moderna). The study’s primary objective was to evaluate the humoral immune response (antibody quantification) and adverse effects of these vaccines in the pregnant and lactating women compared with both nonpregnant women and a cohort of 37 women who had natural COVID-19 infection during pregnancy.

Antibody quantification from blood and breast milk was performed at 4 time points: V0, the first vaccine dose; V1, the second vaccine dose; V2, 2 to 6 weeks after the second vaccine dose; and at delivery. Umbilical cord blood also was collected from the subset of delivered patients (n = 13).

Results. The ultimately IgG-dominated antibody response to the vaccine in pregnant and lactating women was comparable to that in nonpregnant women, and all vaccine antibody responses were significantly higher than that in response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgG antibodies also were found in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, supporting the transfer of immunity to both the fetus and infant. There were no significant differences in adverse effects between pregnant and nonpregnant women.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s main strength is that it demonstrated a similar increase in humoral immune response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a previously unstudied population of pregnant and lactating women, supporting the potential efficacy of the vaccines in this group at high risk for complications from SARS-CoV-2. Other data to support this include the increased vaccine antibody response compared with the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women as well as the presence of maternal-infant transfer of antibodies via cord blood and breast milk. All of these are important data to inform patients and practitioners who are trying to make shared, informed decisions about a novel vaccine during a global pandemic.

The main limitation of this study is a limited patient population of mostly White, non-Hispanic, health care workers with few comorbidities and only 13 delivered vaccinated patients within the study period. Long-term immunity, immune responses other than antibody titers, and potential fetal effects also were not explored in this study. ●

The rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) is approximately 4.4% of vaginal deliveries, with 3.3% 3rd-degree tears and 1.1% 4th-degree tears.¹ In the United States in 2019 there were 3,745,540 births—a 31.7% rate of cesarean delivery (CD) and a 68.3% rate of vaginal delivery—resulting in approximately 112,600 births with OASIS.² A meta-analysis reported that, among 716,031 vaginal births, the risk factors for OASIS included: forceps delivery (relative risk [RR], 3.15), midline episiotomy (RR, 2.88), occiput posterior fetal position (RR, 2.73), vacuum delivery (RR, 2.60), Asian race (RR, 1.87), primiparity (RR, 1.59), mediolateral episiotomy (RR, 1.55), augmentation of labor (RR, 1.46), and epidural anesthesia (RR, 1.21).³ OASIS is associated with an increased risk for developing postpartum perineal pain, anal incontinence, dyspareunia, and wound breakdown.⁴ Complications following OASIS repair can trigger many follow-up appointments to assess wound healing and provide physical therapy.

This editorial review focuses on evolving recommendations for preventing and repairing OASIS.

The optimal cutting angle for a mediolateral episiotomy is 60 degrees from the midline

For spontaneous vaginal delivery, a policy of restricted episiotomy reduces the risk of OASIS by approximately 30%.⁵ With an operative vaginal delivery, especially forceps delivery of a large fetus in the occiput posterior position, a mediolateral episiotomy may help to reduce the risk of OASIS, although there are minimal data from clinical trials to support this practice. In one clinical trial, 407 women were randomly assigned to either a mediolateral or midline episiotomy.⁶ Approximately 25% of the births in both groups were operative deliveries. The mediolateral episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vaginal introitus and was carried to the right side of the anal sphincter for 3 cm to 4 cm. The midline episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vagina and was carried 2 cm to 3 cm into the midline perineal tissue. In the women having a midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a 4th-degree tear occurred in 5.5% and 0.4% of births, respectively. For the midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a third-degree tear occurred in 18.4% and 8.6%, respectively. In a prospective cohort study of 1,302 women with an episiotomy and vaginal birth, the rate of OASIS associated with midline or mediolateral episiotomy was 14.8% and 7%, respectively (P<.05).⁷ In this study, the operative vaginal delivery rate was 11.6% and 15.2% for the women in the midline and mediolateral groups, respectively.

The angle of the mediolateral episiotomy may influence the rate of OASIS and persistent postpartum perineal pain. In one study, 330 nulliparous women who were assessed to need a mediolateral episiotomy at delivery were randomized to an incision with a 40- or 60-degree angle from the midline.⁸ Prior to incision, a line was drawn on the skin to mark the course of the incision and then infiltrated with 10 mL of lignocaine. The fetal head was delivered with a Ritgen maneuver. The length of the episiotomy averaged 4 cm in both groups. After delivery, the angle of the episiotomy incision was reassessed. The episiotomy incision cut 60 degrees from the midline was measured on average to be 44 degrees from the midline after delivery of the newborn. Similarly, the incision cut at a 40-degree angle was measured to be 24 degrees from the midline after delivery. The rates of OASIS in the women who had a 40- and 60-degree angle incision were 5.5% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .16).

Continue to: Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair...

Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair

Many experts recommend one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic prior to, or during, OASIS repair in order to reduce the risk of wound complications. In a trial 147 women with OASIS were randomly assigned to receive one dose of a second-generation cephalosporin (cefotetan or cefoxitin) with extended anaerobic coverage or a placebo just before repair of the laceration.⁹ At 2 weeks postpartum, perineal wound complications were significantly lower in women receiving one dose of prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobe coverage compared with placebo—8.2% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .037). Additionally, at 2 weeks postpartum, purulent wound discharge was significantly lower in women receiving antibiotic versus placebo, 4% and 17%, respectively (P = .036). Experts writing for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also recommend one dose of cefotetan or cefoxitin.¹⁰ Extended anaerobic coverage also can be achieved by administering a single dose of BOTH cefazolin 2 g by intravenous (IV) infusion PLUS metronidazole 500 mg by IV infusion or oral medication.¹¹ For women with severe penicillin allergy, a recommended regimen is gentamicin 5 mg/kg plus clindamycin 900 mg by IV infusion.¹¹ There is evidence that for colorectal or hysterectomy surgery, expanding prophylactic antibiotic coverage of anaerobes with cefazolin PLUS metronidazole significantly reduces postoperative surgical site infection.^12,13 Following an OASIS repair, wound breakdown is a catastrophic problem that may take many months to resolve. Administration of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage of anaerobes may help to prevent wound breakdown.

Prioritize identifying and separately repairing the internal anal sphincter

The internal anal sphincter is a smooth muscle that runs along the outside of the rectal wall and thickens into a sphincter toward the anal canal. The internal anal sphincter is thin and grey-white in appearance, like a veil. By contrast, the external anal sphincter is a thick band of red striated muscle tissue. In one study of 3,333 primiparous women with OASIS, an internal anal sphincter injury was detected in 33% of cases.¹⁴ In this large cohort, the rate of internal anal sphincter injury with a 3A tear, a 3B tear, a complete tear of the external sphincter and a 4th-degree perineal tear was 22%, 23%, 42%, and 71%, respectively. The internal anal sphincter is important for maintaining rectal continence and is estimated to contribute 50% to 85% of resting anal tone.¹⁵ If injury to the internal anal sphincter is detected at a birth with an OASIS, it is important to separately repair the internal anal sphincter to reduce the risk of postpartum rectal incontinence.¹⁶

Polyglactin 910 vs Polydioxanone (PDS) Suture—Is PDS the winner?

Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) is a braided suture that is absorbed within 56 to 70 days. Polydioxanone suture is a long-lasting monofilament suture that is absorbed within 200 days. Many colorectal surgeons and urogynecologists prefer PDS suture for the repair of both the internal and external anal sphincters.¹⁶ Authors of one randomized trial of OASIS repair with Vicryl or PDS suture did not report significant differences in most clinical outcomes.¹⁷ However, in this study, anal endosonographic imaging of the internal and external anal sphincter demonstrated more internal sphincter defects but not external sphincter defects when the repair was performed with Vicryl rather than PDS. The investigators concluded that comprehensive training of the surgeon, not choice of suture, is probably the most important factor in achieving a good OASIS repair. However, because many subspecialists favor PDS suture for sphincter repair, specialists in obstetrics and gynecology should consider this option.

Continue to: Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

The breakdown of an OASIS repair is an obstetric catastrophe with complications that can last many months and sometimes stretch into years. The best approach to a perineal laceration wound breakdown remains controversial. It is optimal if all patients with a wound breakdown can be offered an early secondary repair or healing by secondary intention, permitting the patient to select the best approach for their specific situation.

As noted by the pioneers of early repair of episiotomy dehiscence, Drs. Hankins, Haugh, Gilstrap, Ramin, and others,^18-20 conventional doctrine is that an episiotomy repair dehiscence should be managed expectantly, allowing healing by secondary intention and delaying repair of the sphincters for a minimum of 3 to 4 months.²¹ However, many small case-series report that early secondary repair of a perineal laceration wound breakdown is possible following multiple days of wound preparation prior to the repair, good surgical technique and diligent postoperative follow-up care. One large case series reported on 72 women with complete perineal wound dehiscence who had early secondary repair.²² The median time to complete wound healing following early repair was 28 days. About 36% of the patients had one or more complications, including skin dehiscence, granuloma formation, perineal pain, and sinus formation. A pilot randomized trial reported that, compared with expectant management of a wound breakdown, early repair resulted in a shorter time to wound healing.²³

Early repair of perineal wound dehiscence often involves a course of care that extends over multiple weeks. As an example, following a vaginal birth with OASIS and immediate repair, the patient is often discharged from the hospital to home on postpartum day 3. The wound breakdown often is detected between postpartum days 6 to 10. If early secondary repair is selected as the best treatment, 1 to 6 days of daily debridement of the wound is needed to prepare the wound for early secondary repair. The daily debridement required to prepare the wound for early repair is often performed in the hospital, potentially disrupting early mother-newborn bonding. Following the repair, the patient is observed in the hospital for 1 to 3 days and then discharged home with daily wound care and multiple follow-up visits to monitor wound healing. Pelvic floor physical therapy may be initiated when the wound is healed. The prolonged process required for early secondary repair may be best undertaken by a subspecialty practice.²⁴

The surgical repair and postpartum care of OASIS continues to evolve. In your practice you should consider:

• performing a mediolateral episiotomy at a 60-degree angle to reduce the risk of OASIS in situations where there is a high risk of anal sphincter injury, such as in forceps delivery
• using one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobic coverage, such as cefotetan or cefoxitin
• focus on identifying and separately repairing an internal anal sphincter injury
• using a long-lasting absorbable suture, such as PDS, to repair the internal and external anal sphincters
• ensuring that the patient with a dehiscence following an episiotomy or anal sphincter injury has access to early secondary repair. Standardizing your approach to the prevention and repair of anal sphincter injury will benefit the approximately 112,600 US women who experience OASIS each year. ●

The rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) is approximately 4.4% of vaginal deliveries, with 3.3% 3rd-degree tears and 1.1% 4th-degree tears.¹ In the United States in 2019 there were 3,745,540 births—a 31.7% rate of cesarean delivery (CD) and a 68.3% rate of vaginal delivery—resulting in approximately 112,600 births with OASIS.² A meta-analysis reported that, among 716,031 vaginal births, the risk factors for OASIS included: forceps delivery (relative risk [RR], 3.15), midline episiotomy (RR, 2.88), occiput posterior fetal position (RR, 2.73), vacuum delivery (RR, 2.60), Asian race (RR, 1.87), primiparity (RR, 1.59), mediolateral episiotomy (RR, 1.55), augmentation of labor (RR, 1.46), and epidural anesthesia (RR, 1.21).³ OASIS is associated with an increased risk for developing postpartum perineal pain, anal incontinence, dyspareunia, and wound breakdown.⁴ Complications following OASIS repair can trigger many follow-up appointments to assess wound healing and provide physical therapy.

This editorial review focuses on evolving recommendations for preventing and repairing OASIS.

The optimal cutting angle for a mediolateral episiotomy is 60 degrees from the midline

For spontaneous vaginal delivery, a policy of restricted episiotomy reduces the risk of OASIS by approximately 30%.⁵ With an operative vaginal delivery, especially forceps delivery of a large fetus in the occiput posterior position, a mediolateral episiotomy may help to reduce the risk of OASIS, although there are minimal data from clinical trials to support this practice. In one clinical trial, 407 women were randomly assigned to either a mediolateral or midline episiotomy.⁶ Approximately 25% of the births in both groups were operative deliveries. The mediolateral episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vaginal introitus and was carried to the right side of the anal sphincter for 3 cm to 4 cm. The midline episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vagina and was carried 2 cm to 3 cm into the midline perineal tissue. In the women having a midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a 4th-degree tear occurred in 5.5% and 0.4% of births, respectively. For the midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a third-degree tear occurred in 18.4% and 8.6%, respectively. In a prospective cohort study of 1,302 women with an episiotomy and vaginal birth, the rate of OASIS associated with midline or mediolateral episiotomy was 14.8% and 7%, respectively (P<.05).⁷ In this study, the operative vaginal delivery rate was 11.6% and 15.2% for the women in the midline and mediolateral groups, respectively.

The angle of the mediolateral episiotomy may influence the rate of OASIS and persistent postpartum perineal pain. In one study, 330 nulliparous women who were assessed to need a mediolateral episiotomy at delivery were randomized to an incision with a 40- or 60-degree angle from the midline.⁸ Prior to incision, a line was drawn on the skin to mark the course of the incision and then infiltrated with 10 mL of lignocaine. The fetal head was delivered with a Ritgen maneuver. The length of the episiotomy averaged 4 cm in both groups. After delivery, the angle of the episiotomy incision was reassessed. The episiotomy incision cut 60 degrees from the midline was measured on average to be 44 degrees from the midline after delivery of the newborn. Similarly, the incision cut at a 40-degree angle was measured to be 24 degrees from the midline after delivery. The rates of OASIS in the women who had a 40- and 60-degree angle incision were 5.5% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .16).

Continue to: Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair...

Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair

Many experts recommend one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic prior to, or during, OASIS repair in order to reduce the risk of wound complications. In a trial 147 women with OASIS were randomly assigned to receive one dose of a second-generation cephalosporin (cefotetan or cefoxitin) with extended anaerobic coverage or a placebo just before repair of the laceration.⁹ At 2 weeks postpartum, perineal wound complications were significantly lower in women receiving one dose of prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobe coverage compared with placebo—8.2% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .037). Additionally, at 2 weeks postpartum, purulent wound discharge was significantly lower in women receiving antibiotic versus placebo, 4% and 17%, respectively (P = .036). Experts writing for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also recommend one dose of cefotetan or cefoxitin.¹⁰ Extended anaerobic coverage also can be achieved by administering a single dose of BOTH cefazolin 2 g by intravenous (IV) infusion PLUS metronidazole 500 mg by IV infusion or oral medication.¹¹ For women with severe penicillin allergy, a recommended regimen is gentamicin 5 mg/kg plus clindamycin 900 mg by IV infusion.¹¹ There is evidence that for colorectal or hysterectomy surgery, expanding prophylactic antibiotic coverage of anaerobes with cefazolin PLUS metronidazole significantly reduces postoperative surgical site infection.^12,13 Following an OASIS repair, wound breakdown is a catastrophic problem that may take many months to resolve. Administration of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage of anaerobes may help to prevent wound breakdown.

Prioritize identifying and separately repairing the internal anal sphincter

The internal anal sphincter is a smooth muscle that runs along the outside of the rectal wall and thickens into a sphincter toward the anal canal. The internal anal sphincter is thin and grey-white in appearance, like a veil. By contrast, the external anal sphincter is a thick band of red striated muscle tissue. In one study of 3,333 primiparous women with OASIS, an internal anal sphincter injury was detected in 33% of cases.¹⁴ In this large cohort, the rate of internal anal sphincter injury with a 3A tear, a 3B tear, a complete tear of the external sphincter and a 4th-degree perineal tear was 22%, 23%, 42%, and 71%, respectively. The internal anal sphincter is important for maintaining rectal continence and is estimated to contribute 50% to 85% of resting anal tone.¹⁵ If injury to the internal anal sphincter is detected at a birth with an OASIS, it is important to separately repair the internal anal sphincter to reduce the risk of postpartum rectal incontinence.¹⁶

Polyglactin 910 vs Polydioxanone (PDS) Suture—Is PDS the winner?

Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) is a braided suture that is absorbed within 56 to 70 days. Polydioxanone suture is a long-lasting monofilament suture that is absorbed within 200 days. Many colorectal surgeons and urogynecologists prefer PDS suture for the repair of both the internal and external anal sphincters.¹⁶ Authors of one randomized trial of OASIS repair with Vicryl or PDS suture did not report significant differences in most clinical outcomes.¹⁷ However, in this study, anal endosonographic imaging of the internal and external anal sphincter demonstrated more internal sphincter defects but not external sphincter defects when the repair was performed with Vicryl rather than PDS. The investigators concluded that comprehensive training of the surgeon, not choice of suture, is probably the most important factor in achieving a good OASIS repair. However, because many subspecialists favor PDS suture for sphincter repair, specialists in obstetrics and gynecology should consider this option.

Continue to: Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

The breakdown of an OASIS repair is an obstetric catastrophe with complications that can last many months and sometimes stretch into years. The best approach to a perineal laceration wound breakdown remains controversial. It is optimal if all patients with a wound breakdown can be offered an early secondary repair or healing by secondary intention, permitting the patient to select the best approach for their specific situation.

As noted by the pioneers of early repair of episiotomy dehiscence, Drs. Hankins, Haugh, Gilstrap, Ramin, and others,^18-20 conventional doctrine is that an episiotomy repair dehiscence should be managed expectantly, allowing healing by secondary intention and delaying repair of the sphincters for a minimum of 3 to 4 months.²¹ However, many small case-series report that early secondary repair of a perineal laceration wound breakdown is possible following multiple days of wound preparation prior to the repair, good surgical technique and diligent postoperative follow-up care. One large case series reported on 72 women with complete perineal wound dehiscence who had early secondary repair.²² The median time to complete wound healing following early repair was 28 days. About 36% of the patients had one or more complications, including skin dehiscence, granuloma formation, perineal pain, and sinus formation. A pilot randomized trial reported that, compared with expectant management of a wound breakdown, early repair resulted in a shorter time to wound healing.²³

Early repair of perineal wound dehiscence often involves a course of care that extends over multiple weeks. As an example, following a vaginal birth with OASIS and immediate repair, the patient is often discharged from the hospital to home on postpartum day 3. The wound breakdown often is detected between postpartum days 6 to 10. If early secondary repair is selected as the best treatment, 1 to 6 days of daily debridement of the wound is needed to prepare the wound for early secondary repair. The daily debridement required to prepare the wound for early repair is often performed in the hospital, potentially disrupting early mother-newborn bonding. Following the repair, the patient is observed in the hospital for 1 to 3 days and then discharged home with daily wound care and multiple follow-up visits to monitor wound healing. Pelvic floor physical therapy may be initiated when the wound is healed. The prolonged process required for early secondary repair may be best undertaken by a subspecialty practice.²⁴

The surgical repair and postpartum care of OASIS continues to evolve. In your practice you should consider:

• performing a mediolateral episiotomy at a 60-degree angle to reduce the risk of OASIS in situations where there is a high risk of anal sphincter injury, such as in forceps delivery
• using one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobic coverage, such as cefotetan or cefoxitin
• focus on identifying and separately repairing an internal anal sphincter injury
• using a long-lasting absorbable suture, such as PDS, to repair the internal and external anal sphincters
• ensuring that the patient with a dehiscence following an episiotomy or anal sphincter injury has access to early secondary repair. Standardizing your approach to the prevention and repair of anal sphincter injury will benefit the approximately 112,600 US women who experience OASIS each year. ●

The rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) is approximately 4.4% of vaginal deliveries, with 3.3% 3rd-degree tears and 1.1% 4th-degree tears.¹ In the United States in 2019 there were 3,745,540 births—a 31.7% rate of cesarean delivery (CD) and a 68.3% rate of vaginal delivery—resulting in approximately 112,600 births with OASIS.² A meta-analysis reported that, among 716,031 vaginal births, the risk factors for OASIS included: forceps delivery (relative risk [RR], 3.15), midline episiotomy (RR, 2.88), occiput posterior fetal position (RR, 2.73), vacuum delivery (RR, 2.60), Asian race (RR, 1.87), primiparity (RR, 1.59), mediolateral episiotomy (RR, 1.55), augmentation of labor (RR, 1.46), and epidural anesthesia (RR, 1.21).³ OASIS is associated with an increased risk for developing postpartum perineal pain, anal incontinence, dyspareunia, and wound breakdown.⁴ Complications following OASIS repair can trigger many follow-up appointments to assess wound healing and provide physical therapy.

This editorial review focuses on evolving recommendations for preventing and repairing OASIS.

The optimal cutting angle for a mediolateral episiotomy is 60 degrees from the midline

For spontaneous vaginal delivery, a policy of restricted episiotomy reduces the risk of OASIS by approximately 30%.⁵ With an operative vaginal delivery, especially forceps delivery of a large fetus in the occiput posterior position, a mediolateral episiotomy may help to reduce the risk of OASIS, although there are minimal data from clinical trials to support this practice. In one clinical trial, 407 women were randomly assigned to either a mediolateral or midline episiotomy.⁶ Approximately 25% of the births in both groups were operative deliveries. The mediolateral episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vaginal introitus and was carried to the right side of the anal sphincter for 3 cm to 4 cm. The midline episiotomy began in the posterior midline of the vagina and was carried 2 cm to 3 cm into the midline perineal tissue. In the women having a midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a 4th-degree tear occurred in 5.5% and 0.4% of births, respectively. For the midline or mediolateral episiotomy, a third-degree tear occurred in 18.4% and 8.6%, respectively. In a prospective cohort study of 1,302 women with an episiotomy and vaginal birth, the rate of OASIS associated with midline or mediolateral episiotomy was 14.8% and 7%, respectively (P<.05).⁷ In this study, the operative vaginal delivery rate was 11.6% and 15.2% for the women in the midline and mediolateral groups, respectively.

The angle of the mediolateral episiotomy may influence the rate of OASIS and persistent postpartum perineal pain. In one study, 330 nulliparous women who were assessed to need a mediolateral episiotomy at delivery were randomized to an incision with a 40- or 60-degree angle from the midline.⁸ Prior to incision, a line was drawn on the skin to mark the course of the incision and then infiltrated with 10 mL of lignocaine. The fetal head was delivered with a Ritgen maneuver. The length of the episiotomy averaged 4 cm in both groups. After delivery, the angle of the episiotomy incision was reassessed. The episiotomy incision cut 60 degrees from the midline was measured on average to be 44 degrees from the midline after delivery of the newborn. Similarly, the incision cut at a 40-degree angle was measured to be 24 degrees from the midline after delivery. The rates of OASIS in the women who had a 40- and 60-degree angle incision were 5.5% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .16).

Continue to: Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair...

Use a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage for anaerobes prior to or during your anal sphincter repair

Many experts recommend one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic prior to, or during, OASIS repair in order to reduce the risk of wound complications. In a trial 147 women with OASIS were randomly assigned to receive one dose of a second-generation cephalosporin (cefotetan or cefoxitin) with extended anaerobic coverage or a placebo just before repair of the laceration.⁹ At 2 weeks postpartum, perineal wound complications were significantly lower in women receiving one dose of prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobe coverage compared with placebo—8.2% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .037). Additionally, at 2 weeks postpartum, purulent wound discharge was significantly lower in women receiving antibiotic versus placebo, 4% and 17%, respectively (P = .036). Experts writing for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also recommend one dose of cefotetan or cefoxitin.¹⁰ Extended anaerobic coverage also can be achieved by administering a single dose of BOTH cefazolin 2 g by intravenous (IV) infusion PLUS metronidazole 500 mg by IV infusion or oral medication.¹¹ For women with severe penicillin allergy, a recommended regimen is gentamicin 5 mg/kg plus clindamycin 900 mg by IV infusion.¹¹ There is evidence that for colorectal or hysterectomy surgery, expanding prophylactic antibiotic coverage of anaerobes with cefazolin PLUS metronidazole significantly reduces postoperative surgical site infection.^12,13 Following an OASIS repair, wound breakdown is a catastrophic problem that may take many months to resolve. Administration of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended coverage of anaerobes may help to prevent wound breakdown.

Prioritize identifying and separately repairing the internal anal sphincter

The internal anal sphincter is a smooth muscle that runs along the outside of the rectal wall and thickens into a sphincter toward the anal canal. The internal anal sphincter is thin and grey-white in appearance, like a veil. By contrast, the external anal sphincter is a thick band of red striated muscle tissue. In one study of 3,333 primiparous women with OASIS, an internal anal sphincter injury was detected in 33% of cases.¹⁴ In this large cohort, the rate of internal anal sphincter injury with a 3A tear, a 3B tear, a complete tear of the external sphincter and a 4th-degree perineal tear was 22%, 23%, 42%, and 71%, respectively. The internal anal sphincter is important for maintaining rectal continence and is estimated to contribute 50% to 85% of resting anal tone.¹⁵ If injury to the internal anal sphincter is detected at a birth with an OASIS, it is important to separately repair the internal anal sphincter to reduce the risk of postpartum rectal incontinence.¹⁶

Polyglactin 910 vs Polydioxanone (PDS) Suture—Is PDS the winner?

Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) is a braided suture that is absorbed within 56 to 70 days. Polydioxanone suture is a long-lasting monofilament suture that is absorbed within 200 days. Many colorectal surgeons and urogynecologists prefer PDS suture for the repair of both the internal and external anal sphincters.¹⁶ Authors of one randomized trial of OASIS repair with Vicryl or PDS suture did not report significant differences in most clinical outcomes.¹⁷ However, in this study, anal endosonographic imaging of the internal and external anal sphincter demonstrated more internal sphincter defects but not external sphincter defects when the repair was performed with Vicryl rather than PDS. The investigators concluded that comprehensive training of the surgeon, not choice of suture, is probably the most important factor in achieving a good OASIS repair. However, because many subspecialists favor PDS suture for sphincter repair, specialists in obstetrics and gynecology should consider this option.

Continue to: Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

Can your patient access early secondary repair if they develop a perineal laceration wound breakdown?

The breakdown of an OASIS repair is an obstetric catastrophe with complications that can last many months and sometimes stretch into years. The best approach to a perineal laceration wound breakdown remains controversial. It is optimal if all patients with a wound breakdown can be offered an early secondary repair or healing by secondary intention, permitting the patient to select the best approach for their specific situation.

As noted by the pioneers of early repair of episiotomy dehiscence, Drs. Hankins, Haugh, Gilstrap, Ramin, and others,^18-20 conventional doctrine is that an episiotomy repair dehiscence should be managed expectantly, allowing healing by secondary intention and delaying repair of the sphincters for a minimum of 3 to 4 months.²¹ However, many small case-series report that early secondary repair of a perineal laceration wound breakdown is possible following multiple days of wound preparation prior to the repair, good surgical technique and diligent postoperative follow-up care. One large case series reported on 72 women with complete perineal wound dehiscence who had early secondary repair.²² The median time to complete wound healing following early repair was 28 days. About 36% of the patients had one or more complications, including skin dehiscence, granuloma formation, perineal pain, and sinus formation. A pilot randomized trial reported that, compared with expectant management of a wound breakdown, early repair resulted in a shorter time to wound healing.²³

Early repair of perineal wound dehiscence often involves a course of care that extends over multiple weeks. As an example, following a vaginal birth with OASIS and immediate repair, the patient is often discharged from the hospital to home on postpartum day 3. The wound breakdown often is detected between postpartum days 6 to 10. If early secondary repair is selected as the best treatment, 1 to 6 days of daily debridement of the wound is needed to prepare the wound for early secondary repair. The daily debridement required to prepare the wound for early repair is often performed in the hospital, potentially disrupting early mother-newborn bonding. Following the repair, the patient is observed in the hospital for 1 to 3 days and then discharged home with daily wound care and multiple follow-up visits to monitor wound healing. Pelvic floor physical therapy may be initiated when the wound is healed. The prolonged process required for early secondary repair may be best undertaken by a subspecialty practice.²⁴

The surgical repair and postpartum care of OASIS continues to evolve. In your practice you should consider:

• performing a mediolateral episiotomy at a 60-degree angle to reduce the risk of OASIS in situations where there is a high risk of anal sphincter injury, such as in forceps delivery
• using one dose of a prophylactic antibiotic with extended anaerobic coverage, such as cefotetan or cefoxitin
• focus on identifying and separately repairing an internal anal sphincter injury
• using a long-lasting absorbable suture, such as PDS, to repair the internal and external anal sphincters
• ensuring that the patient with a dehiscence following an episiotomy or anal sphincter injury has access to early secondary repair. Standardizing your approach to the prevention and repair of anal sphincter injury will benefit the approximately 112,600 US women who experience OASIS each year. ●

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of severe neurodisability in children, and it occurs in about 2 to 3 per 1,000 births worldwide.¹ This nonprogressive disorder is characterized by symptoms that include spasticity, dystonia, choreoathetosis, and/or ataxia that are evident in the first few years of life. While many perinatal variables have been associated with CP, in most cases a specific cause is not identified.

Other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as intellectual disability, epilepsy, and autism spectrum disorder, are often associated with CP.² These other neurodevelopmental disorders are often genetic, and this has raised the question as to whether CP also might have a substantial genetic component, although this has not been investigated in any significant way until recently. This topic is of great interest to the obstetric community, given that CP often is attributed to obstetric events, including mismanagement of labor and delivery.

Emerging evidence of a genetic-CP association

In an article published recently in JAMA, Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues sought to determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for CP.³ This large cross-sectional study included results of exome sequencing performed in 2 settings. The first setting was a commercial laboratory in which samples were sent for analysis due to a diagnosis of CP, primarily in children (n = 1,345) with a median age of 8.8 years. A second cohort, recruited from a neurodevelopmental disorders clinic at Geisinger, included primarily adults (n = 181) with a median age of 41.9 years.

As is standard in exome sequencing, results were considered likely causative if they were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic based on criteria of the American College of Genetics and Genomics. In the laboratory group, 32.7% (440 of 1,345) had a genetic cause of the CP identified, while in the clinic group, 10.5% (19 of 181) had a genetic etiology found. Although most of the identified genetic variants were de novo (that is, they arose in the affected individual and were not clearly inherited), some were inherited from carrier parents.³

A number of other recent studies also have investigated genetic causes of CP and similarly have reported that a substantial number of cases are genetic. Several studies that performed chromosomal microarray analysis in individuals with CP found deleterious copy number variants in 10% to 31% of cases.^4-6 Genomic variants detectable by exome sequencing have been reported in 15% to 20% of cases.³ In a recent study in Nature Genetics, researchers performed exome sequencing on 250 parent-child “trios” in which the child had CP, and they found that 14% of cases had an associated genetic variant that was thought to be causative.⁴ These studies all provide consistent evidence that a substantial proportion of CP cases are due to genetic causes.

Contributors to CP risk

Historically, CP was considered to occur largely as a result of perinatal anoxia. In 1862, the British orthopedic surgeon William John Little first reported an association between prematurity, asphyxia, difficult delivery, and CP in a paper presented to the Obstetrical Society of London.⁷ Subsequently, much effort has gone into the prevention of perinatal asphyxia and birth injury, although our ability to monitor fetal well-being remains limited. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns are nonspecific and can occur for many reasons other than fetal asphyxia. Studies of electronic fetal monitoring have found that continuous monitoring primarily leads to an increase in cesarean delivery with no decrease in CP or infant mortality.⁸

While some have attributed this to failure to accurately interpret the fetal heart rate tracing, it also may be because a substantial number of CP cases are due to genetic and other causes, and that very few in fact result from preventable intrapartum injury.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that knowledge gaps preclude definitive determination that a given case of neonatal encephalopathy is attributable to an acute intrapartum event, and they provide criteria that must be fulfilled to establish a reasonable causal link between an intrapartum event and subsequent long-term neurologic disability.⁹ However, there continues to be a belief in the medical, scientific, and lay communities that birth asphyxia, secondary to adverse intrapartum events, is the leading cause of CP. A “brain-damaged infant” remains one of the most common malpractice claims, and birth injury one of the highest paid claims. Such claims generally allege that intrapartum asphyxia has caused long-term neurologic sequelae, including CP.

While it is true that prematurity, infection, hypoxia-ischemia, and pre- and perinatal stroke all have been implicated as contributing to CP risk, large population-based studies have shown that birth asphyxia accounts for less than 12% of CP cases.¹⁰ Specifically, recent data indicate that acute intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia occurs only in about 6% of CP cases. In other words, it does occur and may contribute to some cases, but this is likely a smaller percent than previously thought, and genetic factors now appear to be far more significant contributors.¹¹

Continue to: Exploring a genetic etiology...

 

 

Exploring a genetic etiology

In considering the etiologies of CP, it is important to note that 21% to 40% of individuals with CP have an associated congenital anomaly, suggesting a genetic origin in at least some individuals. Moreover, a 40% heritability has been estimated in CP, which is comparable to the heritability rate for autism spectrum disorders.¹²

In the recent study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, some of the gene variants detected were previously associated with other forms of neurodevelopmental disability, such as epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder.³ Many individuals in the study cohort were found to have multiple neurologic comorbidities, for example, CP as well as epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, and/or intellectual disability. The presence of these additional comorbidities increased the likelihood of finding a genetic cause; the authors found that the diagnostic yield ranged from 11.2% with isolated CP to 32.9% with all 3 comorbidities. The yield was highest with CP and intellectual disability and CP with all 3 comorbidities. A few genes were particularly common, and some were reported previously in association with CP and/or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In some patients, variants were found in genes or gene regions associated with disorders that do not frequently include CP, such as Rett syndrome.³

Implications for ObGyns

The data from the study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues are interesting and relevant to pediatricians, neurologists, and geneticists, as well as obstetricians. Understanding the cause of any disease or disorder improves care, including counseling regarding the cause, the appropriate interventions or therapy, and in some families, the recurrence risk in another pregnancy. The treatment for CP has not changed significantly in many years. Increasingly, detection of an underlying genetic cause can guide precision treatments; thus, the detection of specific gene variants allows a targeted approach to therapy.

Identification of a genetic cause also can significantly impact recurrence risk counseling and prenatal diagnosis options in another pregnancy. In general, the empiric recurrence risk of CP is quoted as 1% to 2%,¹³ and with de novo variants this does not change. However, with inherited variants the recurrence risk in future children is substantially higher. While 72% of the genetic variants associated with CP in the Moreno-De-Luca study were de novo with a low recurrence risk, in the other 28% the mode of inheritance indicated a substantial risk of recurrence (25%–50%) in another pregnancy.³ Detecting such causative variant(s) allows not only accurate counseling about recurrence risk but also preimplantation genetic testing or prenatal diagnosis when recurrence risk is high.

In the field of obstetrics, the debate about the etiology of CP is important largely due to the medicolegal implications. Patient-oriented information on the internet often states that CP is caused by damage to the child’s brain just before, during, or soon after birth, supporting potential blame of those providing care during those times. Patient-oriented websites regarding CP do not list genetic disorders among the causes but rather include primarily environmental factors, such as prematurity, low birth weight, in utero infections, anoxia or other brain injury, or perinatal stroke. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website lists brain damage as the primary etiology of CP.¹⁴ Hopefully, these new data will increase a broader understanding of this condition.

Exome sequencing is now recommended as a first-tier test for individuals with many neurodevelopmental disorders, including epilepsy, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorder.¹⁵ However, comprehensive genetic testing is not typically recommended or performed in cases of CP. Based on recent data, including the report by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, it would seem that CP should be added to the list of disorders for which exome sequencing is ordered, given the similar prevalence and diagnostic yield. ●

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of severe neurodisability in children, and it occurs in about 2 to 3 per 1,000 births worldwide.¹ This nonprogressive disorder is characterized by symptoms that include spasticity, dystonia, choreoathetosis, and/or ataxia that are evident in the first few years of life. While many perinatal variables have been associated with CP, in most cases a specific cause is not identified.

Other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as intellectual disability, epilepsy, and autism spectrum disorder, are often associated with CP.² These other neurodevelopmental disorders are often genetic, and this has raised the question as to whether CP also might have a substantial genetic component, although this has not been investigated in any significant way until recently. This topic is of great interest to the obstetric community, given that CP often is attributed to obstetric events, including mismanagement of labor and delivery.

Emerging evidence of a genetic-CP association

In an article published recently in JAMA, Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues sought to determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for CP.³ This large cross-sectional study included results of exome sequencing performed in 2 settings. The first setting was a commercial laboratory in which samples were sent for analysis due to a diagnosis of CP, primarily in children (n = 1,345) with a median age of 8.8 years. A second cohort, recruited from a neurodevelopmental disorders clinic at Geisinger, included primarily adults (n = 181) with a median age of 41.9 years.

As is standard in exome sequencing, results were considered likely causative if they were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic based on criteria of the American College of Genetics and Genomics. In the laboratory group, 32.7% (440 of 1,345) had a genetic cause of the CP identified, while in the clinic group, 10.5% (19 of 181) had a genetic etiology found. Although most of the identified genetic variants were de novo (that is, they arose in the affected individual and were not clearly inherited), some were inherited from carrier parents.³

A number of other recent studies also have investigated genetic causes of CP and similarly have reported that a substantial number of cases are genetic. Several studies that performed chromosomal microarray analysis in individuals with CP found deleterious copy number variants in 10% to 31% of cases.^4-6 Genomic variants detectable by exome sequencing have been reported in 15% to 20% of cases.³ In a recent study in Nature Genetics, researchers performed exome sequencing on 250 parent-child “trios” in which the child had CP, and they found that 14% of cases had an associated genetic variant that was thought to be causative.⁴ These studies all provide consistent evidence that a substantial proportion of CP cases are due to genetic causes.

Contributors to CP risk

Historically, CP was considered to occur largely as a result of perinatal anoxia. In 1862, the British orthopedic surgeon William John Little first reported an association between prematurity, asphyxia, difficult delivery, and CP in a paper presented to the Obstetrical Society of London.⁷ Subsequently, much effort has gone into the prevention of perinatal asphyxia and birth injury, although our ability to monitor fetal well-being remains limited. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns are nonspecific and can occur for many reasons other than fetal asphyxia. Studies of electronic fetal monitoring have found that continuous monitoring primarily leads to an increase in cesarean delivery with no decrease in CP or infant mortality.⁸

While some have attributed this to failure to accurately interpret the fetal heart rate tracing, it also may be because a substantial number of CP cases are due to genetic and other causes, and that very few in fact result from preventable intrapartum injury.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that knowledge gaps preclude definitive determination that a given case of neonatal encephalopathy is attributable to an acute intrapartum event, and they provide criteria that must be fulfilled to establish a reasonable causal link between an intrapartum event and subsequent long-term neurologic disability.⁹ However, there continues to be a belief in the medical, scientific, and lay communities that birth asphyxia, secondary to adverse intrapartum events, is the leading cause of CP. A “brain-damaged infant” remains one of the most common malpractice claims, and birth injury one of the highest paid claims. Such claims generally allege that intrapartum asphyxia has caused long-term neurologic sequelae, including CP.

While it is true that prematurity, infection, hypoxia-ischemia, and pre- and perinatal stroke all have been implicated as contributing to CP risk, large population-based studies have shown that birth asphyxia accounts for less than 12% of CP cases.¹⁰ Specifically, recent data indicate that acute intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia occurs only in about 6% of CP cases. In other words, it does occur and may contribute to some cases, but this is likely a smaller percent than previously thought, and genetic factors now appear to be far more significant contributors.¹¹

Continue to: Exploring a genetic etiology...

 

 

Exploring a genetic etiology

In considering the etiologies of CP, it is important to note that 21% to 40% of individuals with CP have an associated congenital anomaly, suggesting a genetic origin in at least some individuals. Moreover, a 40% heritability has been estimated in CP, which is comparable to the heritability rate for autism spectrum disorders.¹²

In the recent study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, some of the gene variants detected were previously associated with other forms of neurodevelopmental disability, such as epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder.³ Many individuals in the study cohort were found to have multiple neurologic comorbidities, for example, CP as well as epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, and/or intellectual disability. The presence of these additional comorbidities increased the likelihood of finding a genetic cause; the authors found that the diagnostic yield ranged from 11.2% with isolated CP to 32.9% with all 3 comorbidities. The yield was highest with CP and intellectual disability and CP with all 3 comorbidities. A few genes were particularly common, and some were reported previously in association with CP and/or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In some patients, variants were found in genes or gene regions associated with disorders that do not frequently include CP, such as Rett syndrome.³

Implications for ObGyns

The data from the study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues are interesting and relevant to pediatricians, neurologists, and geneticists, as well as obstetricians. Understanding the cause of any disease or disorder improves care, including counseling regarding the cause, the appropriate interventions or therapy, and in some families, the recurrence risk in another pregnancy. The treatment for CP has not changed significantly in many years. Increasingly, detection of an underlying genetic cause can guide precision treatments; thus, the detection of specific gene variants allows a targeted approach to therapy.

Identification of a genetic cause also can significantly impact recurrence risk counseling and prenatal diagnosis options in another pregnancy. In general, the empiric recurrence risk of CP is quoted as 1% to 2%,¹³ and with de novo variants this does not change. However, with inherited variants the recurrence risk in future children is substantially higher. While 72% of the genetic variants associated with CP in the Moreno-De-Luca study were de novo with a low recurrence risk, in the other 28% the mode of inheritance indicated a substantial risk of recurrence (25%–50%) in another pregnancy.³ Detecting such causative variant(s) allows not only accurate counseling about recurrence risk but also preimplantation genetic testing or prenatal diagnosis when recurrence risk is high.

In the field of obstetrics, the debate about the etiology of CP is important largely due to the medicolegal implications. Patient-oriented information on the internet often states that CP is caused by damage to the child’s brain just before, during, or soon after birth, supporting potential blame of those providing care during those times. Patient-oriented websites regarding CP do not list genetic disorders among the causes but rather include primarily environmental factors, such as prematurity, low birth weight, in utero infections, anoxia or other brain injury, or perinatal stroke. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website lists brain damage as the primary etiology of CP.¹⁴ Hopefully, these new data will increase a broader understanding of this condition.

Exome sequencing is now recommended as a first-tier test for individuals with many neurodevelopmental disorders, including epilepsy, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorder.¹⁵ However, comprehensive genetic testing is not typically recommended or performed in cases of CP. Based on recent data, including the report by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, it would seem that CP should be added to the list of disorders for which exome sequencing is ordered, given the similar prevalence and diagnostic yield. ●

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of severe neurodisability in children, and it occurs in about 2 to 3 per 1,000 births worldwide.¹ This nonprogressive disorder is characterized by symptoms that include spasticity, dystonia, choreoathetosis, and/or ataxia that are evident in the first few years of life. While many perinatal variables have been associated with CP, in most cases a specific cause is not identified.

Other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as intellectual disability, epilepsy, and autism spectrum disorder, are often associated with CP.² These other neurodevelopmental disorders are often genetic, and this has raised the question as to whether CP also might have a substantial genetic component, although this has not been investigated in any significant way until recently. This topic is of great interest to the obstetric community, given that CP often is attributed to obstetric events, including mismanagement of labor and delivery.

Emerging evidence of a genetic-CP association

In an article published recently in JAMA, Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues sought to determine the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing for CP.³ This large cross-sectional study included results of exome sequencing performed in 2 settings. The first setting was a commercial laboratory in which samples were sent for analysis due to a diagnosis of CP, primarily in children (n = 1,345) with a median age of 8.8 years. A second cohort, recruited from a neurodevelopmental disorders clinic at Geisinger, included primarily adults (n = 181) with a median age of 41.9 years.

As is standard in exome sequencing, results were considered likely causative if they were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic based on criteria of the American College of Genetics and Genomics. In the laboratory group, 32.7% (440 of 1,345) had a genetic cause of the CP identified, while in the clinic group, 10.5% (19 of 181) had a genetic etiology found. Although most of the identified genetic variants were de novo (that is, they arose in the affected individual and were not clearly inherited), some were inherited from carrier parents.³

A number of other recent studies also have investigated genetic causes of CP and similarly have reported that a substantial number of cases are genetic. Several studies that performed chromosomal microarray analysis in individuals with CP found deleterious copy number variants in 10% to 31% of cases.^4-6 Genomic variants detectable by exome sequencing have been reported in 15% to 20% of cases.³ In a recent study in Nature Genetics, researchers performed exome sequencing on 250 parent-child “trios” in which the child had CP, and they found that 14% of cases had an associated genetic variant that was thought to be causative.⁴ These studies all provide consistent evidence that a substantial proportion of CP cases are due to genetic causes.

Contributors to CP risk

Historically, CP was considered to occur largely as a result of perinatal anoxia. In 1862, the British orthopedic surgeon William John Little first reported an association between prematurity, asphyxia, difficult delivery, and CP in a paper presented to the Obstetrical Society of London.⁷ Subsequently, much effort has gone into the prevention of perinatal asphyxia and birth injury, although our ability to monitor fetal well-being remains limited. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns are nonspecific and can occur for many reasons other than fetal asphyxia. Studies of electronic fetal monitoring have found that continuous monitoring primarily leads to an increase in cesarean delivery with no decrease in CP or infant mortality.⁸

While some have attributed this to failure to accurately interpret the fetal heart rate tracing, it also may be because a substantial number of CP cases are due to genetic and other causes, and that very few in fact result from preventable intrapartum injury.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that knowledge gaps preclude definitive determination that a given case of neonatal encephalopathy is attributable to an acute intrapartum event, and they provide criteria that must be fulfilled to establish a reasonable causal link between an intrapartum event and subsequent long-term neurologic disability.⁹ However, there continues to be a belief in the medical, scientific, and lay communities that birth asphyxia, secondary to adverse intrapartum events, is the leading cause of CP. A “brain-damaged infant” remains one of the most common malpractice claims, and birth injury one of the highest paid claims. Such claims generally allege that intrapartum asphyxia has caused long-term neurologic sequelae, including CP.

While it is true that prematurity, infection, hypoxia-ischemia, and pre- and perinatal stroke all have been implicated as contributing to CP risk, large population-based studies have shown that birth asphyxia accounts for less than 12% of CP cases.¹⁰ Specifically, recent data indicate that acute intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia occurs only in about 6% of CP cases. In other words, it does occur and may contribute to some cases, but this is likely a smaller percent than previously thought, and genetic factors now appear to be far more significant contributors.¹¹

Continue to: Exploring a genetic etiology...

 

 

Exploring a genetic etiology

In considering the etiologies of CP, it is important to note that 21% to 40% of individuals with CP have an associated congenital anomaly, suggesting a genetic origin in at least some individuals. Moreover, a 40% heritability has been estimated in CP, which is comparable to the heritability rate for autism spectrum disorders.¹²

In the recent study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, some of the gene variants detected were previously associated with other forms of neurodevelopmental disability, such as epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder.³ Many individuals in the study cohort were found to have multiple neurologic comorbidities, for example, CP as well as epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, and/or intellectual disability. The presence of these additional comorbidities increased the likelihood of finding a genetic cause; the authors found that the diagnostic yield ranged from 11.2% with isolated CP to 32.9% with all 3 comorbidities. The yield was highest with CP and intellectual disability and CP with all 3 comorbidities. A few genes were particularly common, and some were reported previously in association with CP and/or other neurodevelopmental disorders. In some patients, variants were found in genes or gene regions associated with disorders that do not frequently include CP, such as Rett syndrome.³

Implications for ObGyns

The data from the study by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues are interesting and relevant to pediatricians, neurologists, and geneticists, as well as obstetricians. Understanding the cause of any disease or disorder improves care, including counseling regarding the cause, the appropriate interventions or therapy, and in some families, the recurrence risk in another pregnancy. The treatment for CP has not changed significantly in many years. Increasingly, detection of an underlying genetic cause can guide precision treatments; thus, the detection of specific gene variants allows a targeted approach to therapy.

Identification of a genetic cause also can significantly impact recurrence risk counseling and prenatal diagnosis options in another pregnancy. In general, the empiric recurrence risk of CP is quoted as 1% to 2%,¹³ and with de novo variants this does not change. However, with inherited variants the recurrence risk in future children is substantially higher. While 72% of the genetic variants associated with CP in the Moreno-De-Luca study were de novo with a low recurrence risk, in the other 28% the mode of inheritance indicated a substantial risk of recurrence (25%–50%) in another pregnancy.³ Detecting such causative variant(s) allows not only accurate counseling about recurrence risk but also preimplantation genetic testing or prenatal diagnosis when recurrence risk is high.

In the field of obstetrics, the debate about the etiology of CP is important largely due to the medicolegal implications. Patient-oriented information on the internet often states that CP is caused by damage to the child’s brain just before, during, or soon after birth, supporting potential blame of those providing care during those times. Patient-oriented websites regarding CP do not list genetic disorders among the causes but rather include primarily environmental factors, such as prematurity, low birth weight, in utero infections, anoxia or other brain injury, or perinatal stroke. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website lists brain damage as the primary etiology of CP.¹⁴ Hopefully, these new data will increase a broader understanding of this condition.

Exome sequencing is now recommended as a first-tier test for individuals with many neurodevelopmental disorders, including epilepsy, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorder.¹⁵ However, comprehensive genetic testing is not typically recommended or performed in cases of CP. Based on recent data, including the report by Moreno-De-Luca and colleagues, it would seem that CP should be added to the list of disorders for which exome sequencing is ordered, given the similar prevalence and diagnostic yield. ●

Obesity affects approximately 30% of American women, and while it is easy to diagnose, it is often difficult to address with our patients. Healthy eating and regular physical activity are the time-tested ways to achieve and maintain an appropriate weight.

For women with moderate obesity, leveraging technology is a great way to help them sensibly achieve weight loss. To evaluate the quality of a mobile app targeted to address obesity, it is particularly important to consider an app’s usefulness, functionality, and design. Clinicians can evaluate these elements with the use of the ACOG-recommended rubric, which provides criteria for judging usefulness, accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, functionality, design, security, and value.

Obesity app considerations

A particularly valuable app feature that rates high on the usefulness measure is the capability for real-time motivational guidance that encourages the user to meet her daily goals. The ability to quickly and accurately scan and upload food items to an app and quantify portions using common comparative illustrations for measurement would give an app a high score on functionality. Coveted design features to enhance the user’s experience, such as syncing real time with wearable devices and catering to both visual and text learners, increase the value of an app.

In addition, an app with the combined features of a personal dietitian and a fitness trainer can employ techniques to encourage healthy eating and physical activity to self-monitor food intake and exercise. Features that calculate the user’s calorie level based on age, sex, height, and activity and offer a personalized dashboard to track carbohydrates, proteins, and fat breakdown (including nutrients and water intake) also can increase effectiveness. These features engage users to become more motivated toward an active lifestyle to balance food intake.

By incorporating apps that combine behavioral strategies with individualization, community presence, and feedback, we can successfully partner with our patients to address obesity. ●

Obesity affects approximately 30% of American women, and while it is easy to diagnose, it is often difficult to address with our patients. Healthy eating and regular physical activity are the time-tested ways to achieve and maintain an appropriate weight.

For women with moderate obesity, leveraging technology is a great way to help them sensibly achieve weight loss. To evaluate the quality of a mobile app targeted to address obesity, it is particularly important to consider an app’s usefulness, functionality, and design. Clinicians can evaluate these elements with the use of the ACOG-recommended rubric, which provides criteria for judging usefulness, accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, functionality, design, security, and value.

Obesity app considerations

A particularly valuable app feature that rates high on the usefulness measure is the capability for real-time motivational guidance that encourages the user to meet her daily goals. The ability to quickly and accurately scan and upload food items to an app and quantify portions using common comparative illustrations for measurement would give an app a high score on functionality. Coveted design features to enhance the user’s experience, such as syncing real time with wearable devices and catering to both visual and text learners, increase the value of an app.

In addition, an app with the combined features of a personal dietitian and a fitness trainer can employ techniques to encourage healthy eating and physical activity to self-monitor food intake and exercise. Features that calculate the user’s calorie level based on age, sex, height, and activity and offer a personalized dashboard to track carbohydrates, proteins, and fat breakdown (including nutrients and water intake) also can increase effectiveness. These features engage users to become more motivated toward an active lifestyle to balance food intake.

By incorporating apps that combine behavioral strategies with individualization, community presence, and feedback, we can successfully partner with our patients to address obesity. ●

Obesity affects approximately 30% of American women, and while it is easy to diagnose, it is often difficult to address with our patients. Healthy eating and regular physical activity are the time-tested ways to achieve and maintain an appropriate weight.

For women with moderate obesity, leveraging technology is a great way to help them sensibly achieve weight loss. To evaluate the quality of a mobile app targeted to address obesity, it is particularly important to consider an app’s usefulness, functionality, and design. Clinicians can evaluate these elements with the use of the ACOG-recommended rubric, which provides criteria for judging usefulness, accuracy, authority, objectivity, timeliness, functionality, design, security, and value.

Obesity app considerations

A particularly valuable app feature that rates high on the usefulness measure is the capability for real-time motivational guidance that encourages the user to meet her daily goals. The ability to quickly and accurately scan and upload food items to an app and quantify portions using common comparative illustrations for measurement would give an app a high score on functionality. Coveted design features to enhance the user’s experience, such as syncing real time with wearable devices and catering to both visual and text learners, increase the value of an app.

In addition, an app with the combined features of a personal dietitian and a fitness trainer can employ techniques to encourage healthy eating and physical activity to self-monitor food intake and exercise. Features that calculate the user’s calorie level based on age, sex, height, and activity and offer a personalized dashboard to track carbohydrates, proteins, and fat breakdown (including nutrients and water intake) also can increase effectiveness. These features engage users to become more motivated toward an active lifestyle to balance food intake.

By incorporating apps that combine behavioral strategies with individualization, community presence, and feedback, we can successfully partner with our patients to address obesity. ●

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Biden administration is reversing a Trump-era policy that allowed health care providers to bar services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) patients.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gave notice on Monday that it would interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 – which bars discrimination on the basis of sex – to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The department said its position is consistent with a June 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA. The ruling determined that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The mission of our Department is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, in a statement released Monday.

“All people need access to health care services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk,” she said. “No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

Many physician organizations applauded the decision.

“The Biden administration did the right thing by terminating a short-lived effort to allow discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation when seeking health care,” said Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, in a statement.

When, in 2019, the Trump administration proposed to allow providers to deny care to LGBTQ people, the AMA said in a letter to the HHS that its interpretation “was contrary to the intent and the plain language of the law.”

Now, said Bailey, the AMA welcomes the Biden administration’s interpretation. It “is a victory for health equity and ends a dismal chapter in which a federal agency sought to remove civil rights protections,” she said.

An alliance of patient groups – including the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Epilepsy Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Organization for Rare Disorders – also applauded the new policy. “This community already faces significant health disparities,” the groups noted in a statement. People with chronic illness such as HIV and cancer “need to be able to access care quickly and without fear of discrimination,” they said.

The groups had filed a friend of the court brief in a case against the Trump administration rule.

“We welcome this positive step to ensure access is preserved without hindrance, as intended by the health care law,” they said.

Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C. – led by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is now HHS secretary – sued the Trump administration in July 2020, aiming to overturn the rule.

Chase Strangio, deputy director for Trans Justice with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project, noted that the HHS announcement was crucial in the face of efforts in multiple states to bar health care for transgender youth. “The Biden administration has affirmed what courts have said for decades: Discrimination against LGBTQ people is against the law. It also affirms what transgender people have long said: Gender-affirming care is life-saving care,” he said in a statement.

Lambda Legal, which led another lawsuit against the Trump administration rule, said it welcomed the HHS action but noted in a statement by the organization’s senior attorney, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, that it “does not address significant aspects of the Trump-era rule that we and others have challenged in court.”

The Trump rule also “limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency, unlawfully incorporated religious exemptions, and dramatically reduced the number of health care entities and insurance subject to the rule, all of which today’s action does not address,” said Gonzalez-Pagan.

“We encourage Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Biden administration to take additional steps to ensure that all LGBTQ people are completely covered wherever and whenever they may encounter discrimination during some of the most delicate and precarious moments of their lives: When seeking health care,” he said.

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

The Biden administration is reversing a Trump-era policy that allowed health care providers to bar services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) patients.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gave notice on Monday that it would interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 – which bars discrimination on the basis of sex – to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The department said its position is consistent with a June 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA. The ruling determined that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The mission of our Department is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, in a statement released Monday.

“All people need access to health care services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk,” she said. “No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

Many physician organizations applauded the decision.

“The Biden administration did the right thing by terminating a short-lived effort to allow discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation when seeking health care,” said Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, in a statement.

When, in 2019, the Trump administration proposed to allow providers to deny care to LGBTQ people, the AMA said in a letter to the HHS that its interpretation “was contrary to the intent and the plain language of the law.”

Now, said Bailey, the AMA welcomes the Biden administration’s interpretation. It “is a victory for health equity and ends a dismal chapter in which a federal agency sought to remove civil rights protections,” she said.

An alliance of patient groups – including the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Epilepsy Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Organization for Rare Disorders – also applauded the new policy. “This community already faces significant health disparities,” the groups noted in a statement. People with chronic illness such as HIV and cancer “need to be able to access care quickly and without fear of discrimination,” they said.

The groups had filed a friend of the court brief in a case against the Trump administration rule.

“We welcome this positive step to ensure access is preserved without hindrance, as intended by the health care law,” they said.

Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C. – led by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is now HHS secretary – sued the Trump administration in July 2020, aiming to overturn the rule.

Chase Strangio, deputy director for Trans Justice with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project, noted that the HHS announcement was crucial in the face of efforts in multiple states to bar health care for transgender youth. “The Biden administration has affirmed what courts have said for decades: Discrimination against LGBTQ people is against the law. It also affirms what transgender people have long said: Gender-affirming care is life-saving care,” he said in a statement.

Lambda Legal, which led another lawsuit against the Trump administration rule, said it welcomed the HHS action but noted in a statement by the organization’s senior attorney, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, that it “does not address significant aspects of the Trump-era rule that we and others have challenged in court.”

The Trump rule also “limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency, unlawfully incorporated religious exemptions, and dramatically reduced the number of health care entities and insurance subject to the rule, all of which today’s action does not address,” said Gonzalez-Pagan.

“We encourage Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Biden administration to take additional steps to ensure that all LGBTQ people are completely covered wherever and whenever they may encounter discrimination during some of the most delicate and precarious moments of their lives: When seeking health care,” he said.

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

The Biden administration is reversing a Trump-era policy that allowed health care providers to bar services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) patients.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gave notice on Monday that it would interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 – which bars discrimination on the basis of sex – to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The department said its position is consistent with a June 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA. The ruling determined that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The mission of our Department is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, in a statement released Monday.

“All people need access to health care services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk,” she said. “No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

Many physician organizations applauded the decision.

“The Biden administration did the right thing by terminating a short-lived effort to allow discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation when seeking health care,” said Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, in a statement.

When, in 2019, the Trump administration proposed to allow providers to deny care to LGBTQ people, the AMA said in a letter to the HHS that its interpretation “was contrary to the intent and the plain language of the law.”

Now, said Bailey, the AMA welcomes the Biden administration’s interpretation. It “is a victory for health equity and ends a dismal chapter in which a federal agency sought to remove civil rights protections,” she said.

An alliance of patient groups – including the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Epilepsy Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Organization for Rare Disorders – also applauded the new policy. “This community already faces significant health disparities,” the groups noted in a statement. People with chronic illness such as HIV and cancer “need to be able to access care quickly and without fear of discrimination,” they said.

The groups had filed a friend of the court brief in a case against the Trump administration rule.

“We welcome this positive step to ensure access is preserved without hindrance, as intended by the health care law,” they said.

Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C. – led by former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is now HHS secretary – sued the Trump administration in July 2020, aiming to overturn the rule.

Chase Strangio, deputy director for Trans Justice with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project, noted that the HHS announcement was crucial in the face of efforts in multiple states to bar health care for transgender youth. “The Biden administration has affirmed what courts have said for decades: Discrimination against LGBTQ people is against the law. It also affirms what transgender people have long said: Gender-affirming care is life-saving care,” he said in a statement.

Lambda Legal, which led another lawsuit against the Trump administration rule, said it welcomed the HHS action but noted in a statement by the organization’s senior attorney, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, that it “does not address significant aspects of the Trump-era rule that we and others have challenged in court.”

The Trump rule also “limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency, unlawfully incorporated religious exemptions, and dramatically reduced the number of health care entities and insurance subject to the rule, all of which today’s action does not address,” said Gonzalez-Pagan.

“We encourage Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Biden administration to take additional steps to ensure that all LGBTQ people are completely covered wherever and whenever they may encounter discrimination during some of the most delicate and precarious moments of their lives: When seeking health care,” he said.

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

Key clinical point: Women in rural areas were less likely to receive counseling about emergency contraception than urban women, but counseling rates were low for both groups (2% and 3%, respectively). 

Major finding: Between 2006 and 2017, 10% of rural women and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using emergency contraception pills, and ever-use of emergency contraception pills more than doubled in both groups between 2006-2008 and 2015-2017.

Study details: The data come from 28,448 teens and women aged 15-44 years who participated in the National Survey of Family Growth between 2006 and 2017.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding; one coauthor was supported by the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Milkowski CM et al. Contracep X. 2021 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061. 

Key clinical point: Women in rural areas were less likely to receive counseling about emergency contraception than urban women, but counseling rates were low for both groups (2% and 3%, respectively). 

Major finding: Between 2006 and 2017, 10% of rural women and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using emergency contraception pills, and ever-use of emergency contraception pills more than doubled in both groups between 2006-2008 and 2015-2017.

Study details: The data come from 28,448 teens and women aged 15-44 years who participated in the National Survey of Family Growth between 2006 and 2017.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding; one coauthor was supported by the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Milkowski CM et al. Contracep X. 2021 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061. 

Key clinical point: Women in rural areas were less likely to receive counseling about emergency contraception than urban women, but counseling rates were low for both groups (2% and 3%, respectively). 

Major finding: Between 2006 and 2017, 10% of rural women and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using emergency contraception pills, and ever-use of emergency contraception pills more than doubled in both groups between 2006-2008 and 2015-2017.

Study details: The data come from 28,448 teens and women aged 15-44 years who participated in the National Survey of Family Growth between 2006 and 2017.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding; one coauthor was supported by the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Milkowski CM et al. Contracep X. 2021 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061.