MDedge ObGyn

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The percentage of physicians in the United States who are Black has increased only 4% in the past 120 years, and the number of Black male doctors has not changed at all since 1940, according to a new study.

In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.

Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.

“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.

Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.

He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”

The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.

Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.

In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.

The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”

Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.

“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.

Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”

Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”

The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”

Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

Key clinical point: Three countries that implemented an immediate postpartum family planning (IPPFP) intervention that focused on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) showed a significant increase in the number of girls and women who opted for an IUD or implant within 48 hours of delivery. 

Major finding: The mean percentage of IPP LARC adoption among all deliveries in the countries that implemented the intervention programs was 10.01%, compared to 0.77% in countries providing standard postpartum care without the intervention.

Study details: The data come from a review of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (IPP LARC) from 2016 to 2019 in three countries that focused on LARC intervention (Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Pakistan) including training delivery-room providers on counseling and provision of IPPFP; and three countries the did not implement this intervention (Rwanda, Syria, and Yemen).

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Gallagher MC et al. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021 Apr 6. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.613338.

Key clinical point: Three countries that implemented an immediate postpartum family planning (IPPFP) intervention that focused on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) showed a significant increase in the number of girls and women who opted for an IUD or implant within 48 hours of delivery. 

Major finding: The mean percentage of IPP LARC adoption among all deliveries in the countries that implemented the intervention programs was 10.01%, compared to 0.77% in countries providing standard postpartum care without the intervention.

Study details: The data come from a review of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (IPP LARC) from 2016 to 2019 in three countries that focused on LARC intervention (Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Pakistan) including training delivery-room providers on counseling and provision of IPPFP; and three countries the did not implement this intervention (Rwanda, Syria, and Yemen).

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Gallagher MC et al. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021 Apr 6. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.613338.

Key clinical point: Three countries that implemented an immediate postpartum family planning (IPPFP) intervention that focused on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) showed a significant increase in the number of girls and women who opted for an IUD or implant within 48 hours of delivery. 

Major finding: The mean percentage of IPP LARC adoption among all deliveries in the countries that implemented the intervention programs was 10.01%, compared to 0.77% in countries providing standard postpartum care without the intervention.

Study details: The data come from a review of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (IPP LARC) from 2016 to 2019 in three countries that focused on LARC intervention (Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Pakistan) including training delivery-room providers on counseling and provision of IPPFP; and three countries the did not implement this intervention (Rwanda, Syria, and Yemen).

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Gallagher MC et al. Front Glob Womens Health. 2021 Apr 6. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.613338.

Key clinical point: Contraceptive use among adolescents in the United States increased overall from 2006 to 2019, although consistent condom use declined.

Major finding: From 2006-2010 to 2015-2019, adolescents aged 15 to 19 years reported an 86% increased use of any contraception, a 26% increased use of multiple contraception methods, and a 3% increased use of IUDs or implants. 

Study details: The data come from a review of adolescents aged 15 to 19 years from the National Surveys of Family Growth, including 4,662 individuals from 2006-2010, 4,134 from 2011-2015, and 3,182 from 2015-2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Lindberg LD et al. Contraception: X. 2021 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100064.

Key clinical point: Contraceptive use among adolescents in the United States increased overall from 2006 to 2019, although consistent condom use declined.

Major finding: From 2006-2010 to 2015-2019, adolescents aged 15 to 19 years reported an 86% increased use of any contraception, a 26% increased use of multiple contraception methods, and a 3% increased use of IUDs or implants. 

Study details: The data come from a review of adolescents aged 15 to 19 years from the National Surveys of Family Growth, including 4,662 individuals from 2006-2010, 4,134 from 2011-2015, and 3,182 from 2015-2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Lindberg LD et al. Contraception: X. 2021 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100064.

Key clinical point: Contraceptive use among adolescents in the United States increased overall from 2006 to 2019, although consistent condom use declined.

Major finding: From 2006-2010 to 2015-2019, adolescents aged 15 to 19 years reported an 86% increased use of any contraception, a 26% increased use of multiple contraception methods, and a 3% increased use of IUDs or implants. 

Study details: The data come from a review of adolescents aged 15 to 19 years from the National Surveys of Family Growth, including 4,662 individuals from 2006-2010, 4,134 from 2011-2015, and 3,182 from 2015-2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by an anonymous foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Lindberg LD et al. Contraception: X. 2021 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2021.100064.

Key clinical point: The generally positive attitudes towards contraception but low levels of use highlight the need for greater communication about behavior change among health professionals and medical students to increase their roles as change agents in their communities.

Major finding: Although 58% of the respondents were sexually active, only 18% were using a contraceptive at the time of the survey; however, 83% of contraceptive users were satisfied with past use. In addition, approximately half of respondents discussed contraception with their partners and four-fifths said they would encourage others in contraceptive use, although only 18% were involved in providing family planning methods.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional survey of 400 health workers and clinical care medical students in Ghana between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Agbeno EK et al. Int J Reprod Med. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1155/2021/6631790. 

Key clinical point: The generally positive attitudes towards contraception but low levels of use highlight the need for greater communication about behavior change among health professionals and medical students to increase their roles as change agents in their communities.

Major finding: Although 58% of the respondents were sexually active, only 18% were using a contraceptive at the time of the survey; however, 83% of contraceptive users were satisfied with past use. In addition, approximately half of respondents discussed contraception with their partners and four-fifths said they would encourage others in contraceptive use, although only 18% were involved in providing family planning methods.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional survey of 400 health workers and clinical care medical students in Ghana between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Agbeno EK et al. Int J Reprod Med. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1155/2021/6631790. 

Key clinical point: The generally positive attitudes towards contraception but low levels of use highlight the need for greater communication about behavior change among health professionals and medical students to increase their roles as change agents in their communities.

Major finding: Although 58% of the respondents were sexually active, only 18% were using a contraceptive at the time of the survey; however, 83% of contraceptive users were satisfied with past use. In addition, approximately half of respondents discussed contraception with their partners and four-fifths said they would encourage others in contraceptive use, although only 18% were involved in providing family planning methods.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional survey of 400 health workers and clinical care medical students in Ghana between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Agbeno EK et al. Int J Reprod Med. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1155/2021/6631790. 

Key clinical point: Levonorgestrel was noninferior to copper IUD for emergency contraception, with similar pregnancy rates and adverse events reported for both methods.

Major finding: Pregnancy rates were 1 in 317 (0.3%) in the levonorgestrel group and 0 in 321 (0%) in the copper IUD group in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Study details: The data come from a randomized trial of 317 women who received levonorgestrel IUD and 321 who received copper IUDs and provided 1-month outcome data.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); the University of Utah, with funding in part from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; and grants to the lead author and several coauthors from the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD.

Source:  Turok DK et al.  N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022141.

Key clinical point: Levonorgestrel was noninferior to copper IUD for emergency contraception, with similar pregnancy rates and adverse events reported for both methods.

Major finding: Pregnancy rates were 1 in 317 (0.3%) in the levonorgestrel group and 0 in 321 (0%) in the copper IUD group in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Study details: The data come from a randomized trial of 317 women who received levonorgestrel IUD and 321 who received copper IUDs and provided 1-month outcome data.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); the University of Utah, with funding in part from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; and grants to the lead author and several coauthors from the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD.

Source:  Turok DK et al.  N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022141.

Key clinical point: Levonorgestrel was noninferior to copper IUD for emergency contraception, with similar pregnancy rates and adverse events reported for both methods.

Major finding: Pregnancy rates were 1 in 317 (0.3%) in the levonorgestrel group and 0 in 321 (0%) in the copper IUD group in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Study details: The data come from a randomized trial of 317 women who received levonorgestrel IUD and 321 who received copper IUDs and provided 1-month outcome data.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); the University of Utah, with funding in part from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; and grants to the lead author and several coauthors from the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD.

Source:  Turok DK et al.  N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022141.