MDedge ObGyn

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

A shorter period between eating and going to sleep increased the risk of GERD during pregnancy by approximately 12%, according to data from 400 women.

Antonio_Diaz/iStock/via Getty Images

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition in pregnancy because of changes in gastrointestinal motility caused by hormonal changes, and a short meal-to-bed time (MTBT) also has been associated with increased GERD symptoms, but data on the impact of MTBT on GERD in pregnant women in particular are lacking, wrote Duc T. Quach, MD, of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and colleagues.

In a cross-sectional study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 400 pregnant women aged 18 years and older in various stages of pregnancy who were seen at a single hospital in Vietnam. A short MTBT was defined as going to bed 2 hours or less after eating. Primary outcomes were GERD, defined as troublesome heartburn and/or regurgitation at least once a week, and reflux-related insomnia, defined as trouble initiating or maintaining nighttime sleep. Participants also reported the number of days of troublesome reflux symptoms and frequency of reflux-related insomnia over the last 7 days.

A total of 154 participants had a diagnosis of GERD, for an overall prevalence of 38.5%, similar to that seen in GERD studies of GERD and pregnancy, the researchers noted, and of those with GERD, 20 participants (13.0%) reported reflux-related insomnia.

The overall prevalence of heartburn, regurgitation, nausea with or without vomiting, and epigastric pain were 11.8%, 35.8%, 30.0%, and 5.5%, respectively. A total of 139 women reported reflux symptoms on at least 2 of the past 7 days, and 40 women reported both daytime and nighttime reflux symptoms.
 

Short meal-to-bed time shows strongest association

A short MTBT was the strongest predictor of GERD in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 12.73; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-55.45; P = .001); previous history of reflux symptoms (OR, 9.05; 95% CI, 5.29-15.50; P < 001) and being in the third trimester versus first or second of pregnancy (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.03-2.69; P = .039) also remained significant predictors in a multivariate analysis. In addition, nighttime short MTBT (but not daytime short MTBT) was the strongest risk factor for reflux-related insomnia (OR, 4.60), although alcohol consumption and a history of reflux-related symptoms also remained significant in multivariate analysis.

“Interestingly, the number of days during which reflux symptoms were experienced during the last 7 days sequentially increased across subgroups of participants with no short MTBT, either daytime or nighttime short MTBT, and with both daytime and nighttime MTBT,” the researchers wrote. At 4-7 days, none of the patients with no short MTBT reported reflux symptoms, compared with 7.5% of those with either daytime or nighttime MTBT and 20.9% of those with both daytime and nighttime MTBT.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to accurately record participants’ diets and the potential for overestimating the odds ratio of risk factors in patients with reflux-related insomnia because of the small numbers. However, the results support findings from previous studies and suggest that dietary modifications could provide a nonpharmacological treatment target for managing GERD in pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Behavioral intervention may benefit pregnant women

The study is important because heartburn and regurgitation are common challenges during pregnancy, Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Understanding risk factors for these conditions can be helpful in designing behavioral and pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions.”

The link between short MTBT and increased risk for GERD is well-known, said Dr. Gellad. “Lengthening the time to laying supine after a meal is a common recommendation given to patients with GERD and is included in published GERD guidelines.” Although pregnant woman may have been excluded from trials on which the guidelines and recommendations are based, “it is reasonable to expect that findings would translate to this population that is generally higher risk for reflux,” he noted.

Dr. Gellad was interested to see the dose response between MTBT and reflux, with those patients having both daytime and nighttime short MTBT experiencing reflux more often than those with short MTBT in only one of those time periods (4-7 days vs. 1-3 days).

The key message for clinicians is that, for all individuals, pregnant or not, “avoiding late night meals and short meal-to-bed time is an appropriate behavioral intervention to recommend for patients with troublesome heartburn or regurgitation,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. However, more research is needed in some areas, “implementation studies would be helpful to understand how best to educate patients on behavioral modifications known to decrease reflux symptoms.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no relevant financial disclosures, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

A shorter period between eating and going to sleep increased the risk of GERD during pregnancy by approximately 12%, according to data from 400 women.

Antonio_Diaz/iStock/via Getty Images

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition in pregnancy because of changes in gastrointestinal motility caused by hormonal changes, and a short meal-to-bed time (MTBT) also has been associated with increased GERD symptoms, but data on the impact of MTBT on GERD in pregnant women in particular are lacking, wrote Duc T. Quach, MD, of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and colleagues.

In a cross-sectional study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 400 pregnant women aged 18 years and older in various stages of pregnancy who were seen at a single hospital in Vietnam. A short MTBT was defined as going to bed 2 hours or less after eating. Primary outcomes were GERD, defined as troublesome heartburn and/or regurgitation at least once a week, and reflux-related insomnia, defined as trouble initiating or maintaining nighttime sleep. Participants also reported the number of days of troublesome reflux symptoms and frequency of reflux-related insomnia over the last 7 days.

A total of 154 participants had a diagnosis of GERD, for an overall prevalence of 38.5%, similar to that seen in GERD studies of GERD and pregnancy, the researchers noted, and of those with GERD, 20 participants (13.0%) reported reflux-related insomnia.

The overall prevalence of heartburn, regurgitation, nausea with or without vomiting, and epigastric pain were 11.8%, 35.8%, 30.0%, and 5.5%, respectively. A total of 139 women reported reflux symptoms on at least 2 of the past 7 days, and 40 women reported both daytime and nighttime reflux symptoms.
 

Short meal-to-bed time shows strongest association

A short MTBT was the strongest predictor of GERD in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 12.73; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-55.45; P = .001); previous history of reflux symptoms (OR, 9.05; 95% CI, 5.29-15.50; P < 001) and being in the third trimester versus first or second of pregnancy (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.03-2.69; P = .039) also remained significant predictors in a multivariate analysis. In addition, nighttime short MTBT (but not daytime short MTBT) was the strongest risk factor for reflux-related insomnia (OR, 4.60), although alcohol consumption and a history of reflux-related symptoms also remained significant in multivariate analysis.

“Interestingly, the number of days during which reflux symptoms were experienced during the last 7 days sequentially increased across subgroups of participants with no short MTBT, either daytime or nighttime short MTBT, and with both daytime and nighttime MTBT,” the researchers wrote. At 4-7 days, none of the patients with no short MTBT reported reflux symptoms, compared with 7.5% of those with either daytime or nighttime MTBT and 20.9% of those with both daytime and nighttime MTBT.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to accurately record participants’ diets and the potential for overestimating the odds ratio of risk factors in patients with reflux-related insomnia because of the small numbers. However, the results support findings from previous studies and suggest that dietary modifications could provide a nonpharmacological treatment target for managing GERD in pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Behavioral intervention may benefit pregnant women

The study is important because heartburn and regurgitation are common challenges during pregnancy, Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Understanding risk factors for these conditions can be helpful in designing behavioral and pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions.”

The link between short MTBT and increased risk for GERD is well-known, said Dr. Gellad. “Lengthening the time to laying supine after a meal is a common recommendation given to patients with GERD and is included in published GERD guidelines.” Although pregnant woman may have been excluded from trials on which the guidelines and recommendations are based, “it is reasonable to expect that findings would translate to this population that is generally higher risk for reflux,” he noted.

Dr. Gellad was interested to see the dose response between MTBT and reflux, with those patients having both daytime and nighttime short MTBT experiencing reflux more often than those with short MTBT in only one of those time periods (4-7 days vs. 1-3 days).

The key message for clinicians is that, for all individuals, pregnant or not, “avoiding late night meals and short meal-to-bed time is an appropriate behavioral intervention to recommend for patients with troublesome heartburn or regurgitation,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. However, more research is needed in some areas, “implementation studies would be helpful to understand how best to educate patients on behavioral modifications known to decrease reflux symptoms.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no relevant financial disclosures, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

A shorter period between eating and going to sleep increased the risk of GERD during pregnancy by approximately 12%, according to data from 400 women.

Antonio_Diaz/iStock/via Getty Images

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition in pregnancy because of changes in gastrointestinal motility caused by hormonal changes, and a short meal-to-bed time (MTBT) also has been associated with increased GERD symptoms, but data on the impact of MTBT on GERD in pregnant women in particular are lacking, wrote Duc T. Quach, MD, of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and colleagues.

In a cross-sectional study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 400 pregnant women aged 18 years and older in various stages of pregnancy who were seen at a single hospital in Vietnam. A short MTBT was defined as going to bed 2 hours or less after eating. Primary outcomes were GERD, defined as troublesome heartburn and/or regurgitation at least once a week, and reflux-related insomnia, defined as trouble initiating or maintaining nighttime sleep. Participants also reported the number of days of troublesome reflux symptoms and frequency of reflux-related insomnia over the last 7 days.

A total of 154 participants had a diagnosis of GERD, for an overall prevalence of 38.5%, similar to that seen in GERD studies of GERD and pregnancy, the researchers noted, and of those with GERD, 20 participants (13.0%) reported reflux-related insomnia.

The overall prevalence of heartburn, regurgitation, nausea with or without vomiting, and epigastric pain were 11.8%, 35.8%, 30.0%, and 5.5%, respectively. A total of 139 women reported reflux symptoms on at least 2 of the past 7 days, and 40 women reported both daytime and nighttime reflux symptoms.
 

Short meal-to-bed time shows strongest association

A short MTBT was the strongest predictor of GERD in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 12.73; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-55.45; P = .001); previous history of reflux symptoms (OR, 9.05; 95% CI, 5.29-15.50; P < 001) and being in the third trimester versus first or second of pregnancy (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.03-2.69; P = .039) also remained significant predictors in a multivariate analysis. In addition, nighttime short MTBT (but not daytime short MTBT) was the strongest risk factor for reflux-related insomnia (OR, 4.60), although alcohol consumption and a history of reflux-related symptoms also remained significant in multivariate analysis.

“Interestingly, the number of days during which reflux symptoms were experienced during the last 7 days sequentially increased across subgroups of participants with no short MTBT, either daytime or nighttime short MTBT, and with both daytime and nighttime MTBT,” the researchers wrote. At 4-7 days, none of the patients with no short MTBT reported reflux symptoms, compared with 7.5% of those with either daytime or nighttime MTBT and 20.9% of those with both daytime and nighttime MTBT.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to accurately record participants’ diets and the potential for overestimating the odds ratio of risk factors in patients with reflux-related insomnia because of the small numbers. However, the results support findings from previous studies and suggest that dietary modifications could provide a nonpharmacological treatment target for managing GERD in pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Behavioral intervention may benefit pregnant women

The study is important because heartburn and regurgitation are common challenges during pregnancy, Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Understanding risk factors for these conditions can be helpful in designing behavioral and pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions.”

The link between short MTBT and increased risk for GERD is well-known, said Dr. Gellad. “Lengthening the time to laying supine after a meal is a common recommendation given to patients with GERD and is included in published GERD guidelines.” Although pregnant woman may have been excluded from trials on which the guidelines and recommendations are based, “it is reasonable to expect that findings would translate to this population that is generally higher risk for reflux,” he noted.

Dr. Gellad was interested to see the dose response between MTBT and reflux, with those patients having both daytime and nighttime short MTBT experiencing reflux more often than those with short MTBT in only one of those time periods (4-7 days vs. 1-3 days).

The key message for clinicians is that, for all individuals, pregnant or not, “avoiding late night meals and short meal-to-bed time is an appropriate behavioral intervention to recommend for patients with troublesome heartburn or regurgitation,” Dr. Gellad emphasized. However, more research is needed in some areas, “implementation studies would be helpful to understand how best to educate patients on behavioral modifications known to decrease reflux symptoms.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gellad had no relevant financial disclosures, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

 

 

Norethindrone acetate

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

 

 

Norethindrone acetate

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

 

 

Norethindrone acetate

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

CASE Woman in second stage with prolonged pushing

Ms. J. is an 18-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks’ gestation whose cervix is completely dilated; she has been actively pushing for 60 minutes. The estimated fetal weight is 8 lb, and electronic fetal monitoring shows a Category I fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing. The presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse despite great pushing effort.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. During the third hour of the second stage, Ms. J. is diagnosed with chorioamnionitis and the fetus remains at 0 station. She undergoes a primary cesarean delivery (CD) complicated by bilateral lower uterine extensions and postpartum hemorrhage. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 4 and 8, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.03.

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4.

In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine jointly released a document, “Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery,” in response to the sharp rise in cesarean births from 1996 to 2011.¹ It described management strategies to safely reduce the most common indications for a primary CD in nulliparous women. Specifically, it recommended that the second stage of labor—defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the neonate—may be prolonged, as “longer durations may be appropriate on an individualized basis (eg, with the use of epidural analgesia or with fetal malposition) as long as progress is being documented.”¹

A prolonged second stage was defined as 3 hours of pushing in nulliparous women and 2 hours in multiparous women, with 1 additional hour (or longer) in those receiving epidural analgesia. Indeed, the primary CD rate decreased slightly to 21.7% in 2018, down from 21.9% in 2017.² More recent evidence, however, has shown an increase in maternal and neonatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.^3-8

Efforts to manage the second stage from an evidence-based perspective are critical to balance the desired outcome of a safe vaginal delivery against the risks of prolonged second stage and operative vaginal delivery or CD.

Perspectives on the “ideal” labor duration

It is important to consider the historical context that led to the 2014 change in recommendations for duration of the second stage.⁹ In 1955, Dr. Emanuel Friedman published a prospective observational study of 622 consecutive primigravid parturients at term, of which 500 were included in the analysis that led to the graphicostatistical labor curve, or the well-known “Friedman’s curve.”¹⁰ The mean duration of the second stage was 0.95 hour. The statistical maximum for “ideal labor” for the second stage was set at 2 hours, with an additional hour allotted for patients receiving epidural analgesia.

In 2010, Zhang and colleagues published contemporary labor curves using data from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a multicenter retrospective observational study of 62,415 parturients.¹¹ Among more than 25,000 nulliparous women, the median duration (95th percentile) of the second stage in hours was 1.1 (3.6), respectively. Notably, this analysis included only women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery and normal neonatal outcome.

Prior to the publication of the “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” multiple investigations examined the relationship between the duration of the second stage and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and the findings have been inconsistent.^12-15

For example, Cheng and colleagues noted increased maternal complications that included postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations, and chorioamnionitis, but not neonatal morbidity, with each increasing hour within the second stage.¹² By contrast, a large, population-based cohort study among low-risk women showed an increase in low 5-minute Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and composite perinatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.¹⁵ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the Pushing Early or Pushing Late with Epidural (PEOPLE) trial showed that the chances of a vaginal delivery with a newborn without signs of asphyxia decreased significantly every hour after the first hour, and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and intrapartum fever increased significantly after 2 hours of pushing.¹⁴

While these findings may represent the risks inherent with the intervention of operative delivery and not the duration of second stage of labor per se, one could posit that if the intervention were initiated earlier, could it prevent or at least reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity?

Continue to: Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage...

Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage

When assessing progress in the second stage of labor, consider:

• maternal factors
• fetal/neonatal factors, and
• modifiable factors.

Maternal factors that influence the second stage of labor include parity, body mass index (BMI), age, and clinical pelvimetry.^11,16-19 Fetal/neonatal factors that impact the second stage include the estimated fetal weight, fetal presentation (cephalic, face, and so on), position, and station, as well as the FHR Category.^{20, 21} Factors that can be modified in the second stage include the effect of epidural analgesia (turning it down to reduce motor blockade while maintaining sensory pain relief so that patients feel the “urge” to push), maternal pushing position and technique, the presence of maternal support person(s), manual rotation for a fetal position that is not optimal, immediate versus delayed pushing, and prevention of perineal tears.^22-32 Interestingly, epidural analgesia, parity, birth weight, and station at complete dilation predicted second stage duration but accounted for only 25% of the variability in second stage length, leaving 75% of the variance unexplained.¹⁶

A specific absolute maximum length of time spent in the second stage of labor beyond which all women should undergo operative delivery has not been identified.¹ Therefore, maternal, fetal/neonatal, and modifiable factors need to be critically assessed and continually monitored to determine whether a prolonged second stage or an operative delivery is warranted to prevent or minimize adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Maternal factors

Maternal age correlates directly with the length of the second stage. That is, the length of the second stage increases with increasing age.¹⁷

Multiparous women have a shorter length of the second stage, regardless of epidural analgesia, compared with nulliparous women.¹¹ In the Consortium for Safe Labor, multiparous women had a significantly shorter median second stage compared with nulliparous women.¹¹

In adjusted analyses, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk for CD, with the risk of CD more than 3 times greater in women with a BMI higher than 40 kg/m² compared with those who had a BMI less than 25 kg/m².¹⁸ There were no significant differences in the length of the second stage of labor by BMI catgeories.¹⁹

Fetal factors

Birth weight greater than 4,000 g was associated with an increased risk for arrest of descent during the second stage.³³

Persistent fetal occiput posterior or transverse position may impact the duration of the second stage. A retrospective cohort study in women who underwent a trial of manual rotation compared with expectant management during the second stage of labor with the fetus in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position found that women with manual rotation were less likely to have a CD, severe perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, and chorioamnionitis. However, an increased risk of cervical laceration was associated with manual rotation.²⁰

Regarding FHR status, FHR abnormalities occurred in 91% of second stage labor patterns, with Category II being the most common.²¹ The fetal status should remain reassuring to allow for continuation of the second stage.

Continue to: Epidural analgesia...

Epidural analgesia

About 60% of women receive neuraxial analgesia in the United States,²² although rates vary widely across different populations. A Cochrane review showed no difference in the duration of the second stage among women who had early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor.²³ Epidural analgesia has no impact on the risk of CD; however, women with epidural analgesia experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention.²⁴

One management practice has been to discontinue epidural analgesia to allow resumption of sensory and motor nerve function. Another Cochrane systematic review found no difference in mode of delivery or neonatal outcomes.²⁵ Rather than discontinuing epidural analgesia, which results in a profound increase in inadequate pain relief, one may consider titrating the dose with joint patient decision-making to allow for greater motor capability while maintaining adequate analgesia.³⁴

Immediate vs delayed pushing

The 2 most common approaches to managing the second stage were either to initiate pushing with contractions once complete dilation occurred (immediate pushing) or to allow for a rest period in which the fetus passively rotated and descended while conserving a woman’s energy for pushing efforts (delayed pushing, laboring down, or passive descent). Since the publication of “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” however, studies have shown a concerning association between maternal and neonatal complications and prolonged second stage (which may occur with delayed pushing).^3-8,35 An observational study of nearly 44,000 nulliparous women without epidural analgesia found that prolonged second stage was associated with increased chorioamnionitis, third- and fourth-degree lacerations, neonatal sepsis, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal mortality.³⁵

A pragmatic multicenter randomized clinical trial on the optimal management of second stage of labor across the United States recently was conducted.⁷ More than 2,000 nulliparous women at term in spontaneous or induced labor with epidural analgesia were randomly assigned at complete dilation to immediate pushing or delayed pushing (1 hour after complete dilation). There was no difference in the rate of vaginal delivery. The rate of postpartum hemorrhage was significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (2.3% vs 4.0%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3–0.9; P = .03). Furthermore, rates of chorioamnionitis were significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (6.7% vs 9.1%, respectively; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66–0.90; P = .005). No significant difference occurred in the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity between the groups. However neonatal acidemia (umbilical cord arterial pH <7.1) and confirmed or suspected sepsis were significantly increased in the delayed-pushing group.

The evidence supports active pushing at the start of the second stage. Women who consider delayed pushing should be informed that delayed pushing has not been shown to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth and that it is associated with increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, and neonatal acidemia.³⁶

Maternal pushing position and technique

Spontaneous pushing (in which women are free to follow their instincts and generally push 3 to 5 times per contraction) versus directed pushing (women are encouraged to take a deep breath at the beginning of a contraction then hold it and bear down throughout the contraction) demonstrated no clear difference in duration of the second stage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, time spent pushing, or number of women with spontaneous vaginal birth. There was no difference in 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 or admission to the NICU.²⁶

With regard to maternal positioning during the second stage, a Cochrane systematic review found benefits for upright posture, including a very small reduction in the duration of the second stage, reduction in episiotomy rates, and reduction in assisted deliveries.³⁷ There was an increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL and possibly an increased risk in second-degree tears.³⁷ Compared with women allocated to lying down, women in the upright position during the second stage with epidural analgesia had significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births. There was no difference in operative vaginal delivery, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), infant Apgar score of less than 4 at 5 minutes, and maternal fecal incontinence at 1 year.²⁸

Continue to: Maternal support person...

 

 

Maternal support person

Continuous support during labor may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labor, and decreased cesarean birth.²⁹ In a randomized trial of 412 healthy nulliparous women, women in labor were assigned to either a support group that received continuous support from a doula or an observed group that was monitored by an inconspicuous observer. Continuous labor support significantly reduced the rate of CDs and forceps deliveries.^30,36 Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, doulas have found innovative ways to continue to provide this essential support through virtual health.³⁸

Prevention of perineal tears

Evidence suggests that warm compresses, and massage, may reduce third- and fourth-degree perineal tears.³¹ A meta-analysis of observational studies showed a significant reduction in the risk of OASI.³²

Second stage steps: Recap

Throughout the second stage of labor, the decision to continue with expectant management or intervene with either an operative vaginal delivery or a CD is complex and requires consistent assessment and integration of multiple factors. An evidence-based approach to second stage labor management includes active pushing that is either Valsalva pushing or spontaneous, coached or uncoached, but most importantly, at the start of the second stage when a patient reaches complete dilation. Reassessment should occur at regular intervals to determine progress, after ensuring maternal and fetal well-being.

If there has been no advancement in station, an attempt at manual rotation or titration of epidural analgesia should be considered. Importantly, fetal descent with adequate pushing should be demonstrated throughout the second stage.

Additional considerations that improve outcomes include warm compresses or perineal massage to prevent third- and fourth-degree tears and the presence of a continuous support person to reduce the risk for an operative delivery.

Delivery should be expected within 2 hours for multiparous women and 3 hours for nulliparous women in the second stage. Prolonging the second stage beyond these thresholds should be individualized and occur only in the setting of assured maternal and fetal well-being.

CASE An alternative management strategy

Despite Ms. J.’s great active pushing effort for 60 minutes, the presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse. Ms. J. is counseled regarding the risks and benefits of an attempt at manual rotation of the fetal head, and she wishes to proceed. The fetal position remains occiput transverse.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. At this time, Ms. J. is informed that there has been no descent, and she is counseled on the risks and benefits of continued pushing versus CD. Through shared decision-making, she consents to a CD. She undergoes a primary CD without complication. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 8 and 9, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.13. 

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4. ●

CASE Woman in second stage with prolonged pushing

Ms. J. is an 18-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks’ gestation whose cervix is completely dilated; she has been actively pushing for 60 minutes. The estimated fetal weight is 8 lb, and electronic fetal monitoring shows a Category I fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing. The presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse despite great pushing effort.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. During the third hour of the second stage, Ms. J. is diagnosed with chorioamnionitis and the fetus remains at 0 station. She undergoes a primary cesarean delivery (CD) complicated by bilateral lower uterine extensions and postpartum hemorrhage. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 4 and 8, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.03.

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4.

In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine jointly released a document, “Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery,” in response to the sharp rise in cesarean births from 1996 to 2011.¹ It described management strategies to safely reduce the most common indications for a primary CD in nulliparous women. Specifically, it recommended that the second stage of labor—defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the neonate—may be prolonged, as “longer durations may be appropriate on an individualized basis (eg, with the use of epidural analgesia or with fetal malposition) as long as progress is being documented.”¹

A prolonged second stage was defined as 3 hours of pushing in nulliparous women and 2 hours in multiparous women, with 1 additional hour (or longer) in those receiving epidural analgesia. Indeed, the primary CD rate decreased slightly to 21.7% in 2018, down from 21.9% in 2017.² More recent evidence, however, has shown an increase in maternal and neonatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.^3-8

Efforts to manage the second stage from an evidence-based perspective are critical to balance the desired outcome of a safe vaginal delivery against the risks of prolonged second stage and operative vaginal delivery or CD.

Perspectives on the “ideal” labor duration

It is important to consider the historical context that led to the 2014 change in recommendations for duration of the second stage.⁹ In 1955, Dr. Emanuel Friedman published a prospective observational study of 622 consecutive primigravid parturients at term, of which 500 were included in the analysis that led to the graphicostatistical labor curve, or the well-known “Friedman’s curve.”¹⁰ The mean duration of the second stage was 0.95 hour. The statistical maximum for “ideal labor” for the second stage was set at 2 hours, with an additional hour allotted for patients receiving epidural analgesia.

In 2010, Zhang and colleagues published contemporary labor curves using data from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a multicenter retrospective observational study of 62,415 parturients.¹¹ Among more than 25,000 nulliparous women, the median duration (95th percentile) of the second stage in hours was 1.1 (3.6), respectively. Notably, this analysis included only women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery and normal neonatal outcome.

Prior to the publication of the “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” multiple investigations examined the relationship between the duration of the second stage and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and the findings have been inconsistent.^12-15

For example, Cheng and colleagues noted increased maternal complications that included postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations, and chorioamnionitis, but not neonatal morbidity, with each increasing hour within the second stage.¹² By contrast, a large, population-based cohort study among low-risk women showed an increase in low 5-minute Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and composite perinatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.¹⁵ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the Pushing Early or Pushing Late with Epidural (PEOPLE) trial showed that the chances of a vaginal delivery with a newborn without signs of asphyxia decreased significantly every hour after the first hour, and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and intrapartum fever increased significantly after 2 hours of pushing.¹⁴

While these findings may represent the risks inherent with the intervention of operative delivery and not the duration of second stage of labor per se, one could posit that if the intervention were initiated earlier, could it prevent or at least reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity?

Continue to: Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage...

Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage

When assessing progress in the second stage of labor, consider:

• maternal factors
• fetal/neonatal factors, and
• modifiable factors.

Maternal factors that influence the second stage of labor include parity, body mass index (BMI), age, and clinical pelvimetry.^11,16-19 Fetal/neonatal factors that impact the second stage include the estimated fetal weight, fetal presentation (cephalic, face, and so on), position, and station, as well as the FHR Category.^{20, 21} Factors that can be modified in the second stage include the effect of epidural analgesia (turning it down to reduce motor blockade while maintaining sensory pain relief so that patients feel the “urge” to push), maternal pushing position and technique, the presence of maternal support person(s), manual rotation for a fetal position that is not optimal, immediate versus delayed pushing, and prevention of perineal tears.^22-32 Interestingly, epidural analgesia, parity, birth weight, and station at complete dilation predicted second stage duration but accounted for only 25% of the variability in second stage length, leaving 75% of the variance unexplained.¹⁶

A specific absolute maximum length of time spent in the second stage of labor beyond which all women should undergo operative delivery has not been identified.¹ Therefore, maternal, fetal/neonatal, and modifiable factors need to be critically assessed and continually monitored to determine whether a prolonged second stage or an operative delivery is warranted to prevent or minimize adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Maternal factors

Maternal age correlates directly with the length of the second stage. That is, the length of the second stage increases with increasing age.¹⁷

Multiparous women have a shorter length of the second stage, regardless of epidural analgesia, compared with nulliparous women.¹¹ In the Consortium for Safe Labor, multiparous women had a significantly shorter median second stage compared with nulliparous women.¹¹

In adjusted analyses, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk for CD, with the risk of CD more than 3 times greater in women with a BMI higher than 40 kg/m² compared with those who had a BMI less than 25 kg/m².¹⁸ There were no significant differences in the length of the second stage of labor by BMI catgeories.¹⁹

Fetal factors

Birth weight greater than 4,000 g was associated with an increased risk for arrest of descent during the second stage.³³

Persistent fetal occiput posterior or transverse position may impact the duration of the second stage. A retrospective cohort study in women who underwent a trial of manual rotation compared with expectant management during the second stage of labor with the fetus in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position found that women with manual rotation were less likely to have a CD, severe perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, and chorioamnionitis. However, an increased risk of cervical laceration was associated with manual rotation.²⁰

Regarding FHR status, FHR abnormalities occurred in 91% of second stage labor patterns, with Category II being the most common.²¹ The fetal status should remain reassuring to allow for continuation of the second stage.

Continue to: Epidural analgesia...

Epidural analgesia

About 60% of women receive neuraxial analgesia in the United States,²² although rates vary widely across different populations. A Cochrane review showed no difference in the duration of the second stage among women who had early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor.²³ Epidural analgesia has no impact on the risk of CD; however, women with epidural analgesia experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention.²⁴

One management practice has been to discontinue epidural analgesia to allow resumption of sensory and motor nerve function. Another Cochrane systematic review found no difference in mode of delivery or neonatal outcomes.²⁵ Rather than discontinuing epidural analgesia, which results in a profound increase in inadequate pain relief, one may consider titrating the dose with joint patient decision-making to allow for greater motor capability while maintaining adequate analgesia.³⁴

Immediate vs delayed pushing

The 2 most common approaches to managing the second stage were either to initiate pushing with contractions once complete dilation occurred (immediate pushing) or to allow for a rest period in which the fetus passively rotated and descended while conserving a woman’s energy for pushing efforts (delayed pushing, laboring down, or passive descent). Since the publication of “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” however, studies have shown a concerning association between maternal and neonatal complications and prolonged second stage (which may occur with delayed pushing).^3-8,35 An observational study of nearly 44,000 nulliparous women without epidural analgesia found that prolonged second stage was associated with increased chorioamnionitis, third- and fourth-degree lacerations, neonatal sepsis, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal mortality.³⁵

A pragmatic multicenter randomized clinical trial on the optimal management of second stage of labor across the United States recently was conducted.⁷ More than 2,000 nulliparous women at term in spontaneous or induced labor with epidural analgesia were randomly assigned at complete dilation to immediate pushing or delayed pushing (1 hour after complete dilation). There was no difference in the rate of vaginal delivery. The rate of postpartum hemorrhage was significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (2.3% vs 4.0%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3–0.9; P = .03). Furthermore, rates of chorioamnionitis were significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (6.7% vs 9.1%, respectively; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66–0.90; P = .005). No significant difference occurred in the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity between the groups. However neonatal acidemia (umbilical cord arterial pH <7.1) and confirmed or suspected sepsis were significantly increased in the delayed-pushing group.

The evidence supports active pushing at the start of the second stage. Women who consider delayed pushing should be informed that delayed pushing has not been shown to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth and that it is associated with increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, and neonatal acidemia.³⁶

Maternal pushing position and technique

Spontaneous pushing (in which women are free to follow their instincts and generally push 3 to 5 times per contraction) versus directed pushing (women are encouraged to take a deep breath at the beginning of a contraction then hold it and bear down throughout the contraction) demonstrated no clear difference in duration of the second stage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, time spent pushing, or number of women with spontaneous vaginal birth. There was no difference in 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 or admission to the NICU.²⁶

With regard to maternal positioning during the second stage, a Cochrane systematic review found benefits for upright posture, including a very small reduction in the duration of the second stage, reduction in episiotomy rates, and reduction in assisted deliveries.³⁷ There was an increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL and possibly an increased risk in second-degree tears.³⁷ Compared with women allocated to lying down, women in the upright position during the second stage with epidural analgesia had significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births. There was no difference in operative vaginal delivery, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), infant Apgar score of less than 4 at 5 minutes, and maternal fecal incontinence at 1 year.²⁸

Continue to: Maternal support person...

 

 

Maternal support person

Continuous support during labor may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labor, and decreased cesarean birth.²⁹ In a randomized trial of 412 healthy nulliparous women, women in labor were assigned to either a support group that received continuous support from a doula or an observed group that was monitored by an inconspicuous observer. Continuous labor support significantly reduced the rate of CDs and forceps deliveries.^30,36 Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, doulas have found innovative ways to continue to provide this essential support through virtual health.³⁸

Prevention of perineal tears

Evidence suggests that warm compresses, and massage, may reduce third- and fourth-degree perineal tears.³¹ A meta-analysis of observational studies showed a significant reduction in the risk of OASI.³²

Second stage steps: Recap

Throughout the second stage of labor, the decision to continue with expectant management or intervene with either an operative vaginal delivery or a CD is complex and requires consistent assessment and integration of multiple factors. An evidence-based approach to second stage labor management includes active pushing that is either Valsalva pushing or spontaneous, coached or uncoached, but most importantly, at the start of the second stage when a patient reaches complete dilation. Reassessment should occur at regular intervals to determine progress, after ensuring maternal and fetal well-being.

If there has been no advancement in station, an attempt at manual rotation or titration of epidural analgesia should be considered. Importantly, fetal descent with adequate pushing should be demonstrated throughout the second stage.

Additional considerations that improve outcomes include warm compresses or perineal massage to prevent third- and fourth-degree tears and the presence of a continuous support person to reduce the risk for an operative delivery.

Delivery should be expected within 2 hours for multiparous women and 3 hours for nulliparous women in the second stage. Prolonging the second stage beyond these thresholds should be individualized and occur only in the setting of assured maternal and fetal well-being.

CASE An alternative management strategy

Despite Ms. J.’s great active pushing effort for 60 minutes, the presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse. Ms. J. is counseled regarding the risks and benefits of an attempt at manual rotation of the fetal head, and she wishes to proceed. The fetal position remains occiput transverse.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. At this time, Ms. J. is informed that there has been no descent, and she is counseled on the risks and benefits of continued pushing versus CD. Through shared decision-making, she consents to a CD. She undergoes a primary CD without complication. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 8 and 9, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.13. 

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4. ●

CASE Woman in second stage with prolonged pushing

Ms. J. is an 18-year-old woman (G1P0) at 39 weeks’ gestation whose cervix is completely dilated; she has been actively pushing for 60 minutes. The estimated fetal weight is 8 lb, and electronic fetal monitoring shows a Category I fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing. The presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse despite great pushing effort.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. During the third hour of the second stage, Ms. J. is diagnosed with chorioamnionitis and the fetus remains at 0 station. She undergoes a primary cesarean delivery (CD) complicated by bilateral lower uterine extensions and postpartum hemorrhage. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 4 and 8, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.03.

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4.

In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine jointly released a document, “Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery,” in response to the sharp rise in cesarean births from 1996 to 2011.¹ It described management strategies to safely reduce the most common indications for a primary CD in nulliparous women. Specifically, it recommended that the second stage of labor—defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the neonate—may be prolonged, as “longer durations may be appropriate on an individualized basis (eg, with the use of epidural analgesia or with fetal malposition) as long as progress is being documented.”¹

A prolonged second stage was defined as 3 hours of pushing in nulliparous women and 2 hours in multiparous women, with 1 additional hour (or longer) in those receiving epidural analgesia. Indeed, the primary CD rate decreased slightly to 21.7% in 2018, down from 21.9% in 2017.² More recent evidence, however, has shown an increase in maternal and neonatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.^3-8

Efforts to manage the second stage from an evidence-based perspective are critical to balance the desired outcome of a safe vaginal delivery against the risks of prolonged second stage and operative vaginal delivery or CD.

Perspectives on the “ideal” labor duration

It is important to consider the historical context that led to the 2014 change in recommendations for duration of the second stage.⁹ In 1955, Dr. Emanuel Friedman published a prospective observational study of 622 consecutive primigravid parturients at term, of which 500 were included in the analysis that led to the graphicostatistical labor curve, or the well-known “Friedman’s curve.”¹⁰ The mean duration of the second stage was 0.95 hour. The statistical maximum for “ideal labor” for the second stage was set at 2 hours, with an additional hour allotted for patients receiving epidural analgesia.

In 2010, Zhang and colleagues published contemporary labor curves using data from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a multicenter retrospective observational study of 62,415 parturients.¹¹ Among more than 25,000 nulliparous women, the median duration (95th percentile) of the second stage in hours was 1.1 (3.6), respectively. Notably, this analysis included only women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery and normal neonatal outcome.

Prior to the publication of the “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” multiple investigations examined the relationship between the duration of the second stage and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and the findings have been inconsistent.^12-15

For example, Cheng and colleagues noted increased maternal complications that included postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations, and chorioamnionitis, but not neonatal morbidity, with each increasing hour within the second stage.¹² By contrast, a large, population-based cohort study among low-risk women showed an increase in low 5-minute Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and composite perinatal morbidity with prolonged second stage.¹⁵ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the Pushing Early or Pushing Late with Epidural (PEOPLE) trial showed that the chances of a vaginal delivery with a newborn without signs of asphyxia decreased significantly every hour after the first hour, and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and intrapartum fever increased significantly after 2 hours of pushing.¹⁴

While these findings may represent the risks inherent with the intervention of operative delivery and not the duration of second stage of labor per se, one could posit that if the intervention were initiated earlier, could it prevent or at least reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity?

Continue to: Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage...

Factors to assess and monitor in the second stage

When assessing progress in the second stage of labor, consider:

• maternal factors
• fetal/neonatal factors, and
• modifiable factors.

Maternal factors that influence the second stage of labor include parity, body mass index (BMI), age, and clinical pelvimetry.^11,16-19 Fetal/neonatal factors that impact the second stage include the estimated fetal weight, fetal presentation (cephalic, face, and so on), position, and station, as well as the FHR Category.^{20, 21} Factors that can be modified in the second stage include the effect of epidural analgesia (turning it down to reduce motor blockade while maintaining sensory pain relief so that patients feel the “urge” to push), maternal pushing position and technique, the presence of maternal support person(s), manual rotation for a fetal position that is not optimal, immediate versus delayed pushing, and prevention of perineal tears.^22-32 Interestingly, epidural analgesia, parity, birth weight, and station at complete dilation predicted second stage duration but accounted for only 25% of the variability in second stage length, leaving 75% of the variance unexplained.¹⁶

A specific absolute maximum length of time spent in the second stage of labor beyond which all women should undergo operative delivery has not been identified.¹ Therefore, maternal, fetal/neonatal, and modifiable factors need to be critically assessed and continually monitored to determine whether a prolonged second stage or an operative delivery is warranted to prevent or minimize adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Maternal factors

Maternal age correlates directly with the length of the second stage. That is, the length of the second stage increases with increasing age.¹⁷

Multiparous women have a shorter length of the second stage, regardless of epidural analgesia, compared with nulliparous women.¹¹ In the Consortium for Safe Labor, multiparous women had a significantly shorter median second stage compared with nulliparous women.¹¹

In adjusted analyses, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk for CD, with the risk of CD more than 3 times greater in women with a BMI higher than 40 kg/m² compared with those who had a BMI less than 25 kg/m².¹⁸ There were no significant differences in the length of the second stage of labor by BMI catgeories.¹⁹

Fetal factors

Birth weight greater than 4,000 g was associated with an increased risk for arrest of descent during the second stage.³³

Persistent fetal occiput posterior or transverse position may impact the duration of the second stage. A retrospective cohort study in women who underwent a trial of manual rotation compared with expectant management during the second stage of labor with the fetus in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position found that women with manual rotation were less likely to have a CD, severe perineal laceration, postpartum hemorrhage, and chorioamnionitis. However, an increased risk of cervical laceration was associated with manual rotation.²⁰

Regarding FHR status, FHR abnormalities occurred in 91% of second stage labor patterns, with Category II being the most common.²¹ The fetal status should remain reassuring to allow for continuation of the second stage.

Continue to: Epidural analgesia...

Epidural analgesia

About 60% of women receive neuraxial analgesia in the United States,²² although rates vary widely across different populations. A Cochrane review showed no difference in the duration of the second stage among women who had early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor.²³ Epidural analgesia has no impact on the risk of CD; however, women with epidural analgesia experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention.²⁴

One management practice has been to discontinue epidural analgesia to allow resumption of sensory and motor nerve function. Another Cochrane systematic review found no difference in mode of delivery or neonatal outcomes.²⁵ Rather than discontinuing epidural analgesia, which results in a profound increase in inadequate pain relief, one may consider titrating the dose with joint patient decision-making to allow for greater motor capability while maintaining adequate analgesia.³⁴

Immediate vs delayed pushing

The 2 most common approaches to managing the second stage were either to initiate pushing with contractions once complete dilation occurred (immediate pushing) or to allow for a rest period in which the fetus passively rotated and descended while conserving a woman’s energy for pushing efforts (delayed pushing, laboring down, or passive descent). Since the publication of “Safe prevention of primary cesarean delivery,” however, studies have shown a concerning association between maternal and neonatal complications and prolonged second stage (which may occur with delayed pushing).^3-8,35 An observational study of nearly 44,000 nulliparous women without epidural analgesia found that prolonged second stage was associated with increased chorioamnionitis, third- and fourth-degree lacerations, neonatal sepsis, neonatal asphyxia, and perinatal mortality.³⁵

A pragmatic multicenter randomized clinical trial on the optimal management of second stage of labor across the United States recently was conducted.⁷ More than 2,000 nulliparous women at term in spontaneous or induced labor with epidural analgesia were randomly assigned at complete dilation to immediate pushing or delayed pushing (1 hour after complete dilation). There was no difference in the rate of vaginal delivery. The rate of postpartum hemorrhage was significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (2.3% vs 4.0%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3–0.9; P = .03). Furthermore, rates of chorioamnionitis were significantly lower among women in the immediate-pushing group compared with the delayed-pushing group (6.7% vs 9.1%, respectively; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66–0.90; P = .005). No significant difference occurred in the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity between the groups. However neonatal acidemia (umbilical cord arterial pH <7.1) and confirmed or suspected sepsis were significantly increased in the delayed-pushing group.

The evidence supports active pushing at the start of the second stage. Women who consider delayed pushing should be informed that delayed pushing has not been shown to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth and that it is associated with increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, and neonatal acidemia.³⁶

Maternal pushing position and technique

Spontaneous pushing (in which women are free to follow their instincts and generally push 3 to 5 times per contraction) versus directed pushing (women are encouraged to take a deep breath at the beginning of a contraction then hold it and bear down throughout the contraction) demonstrated no clear difference in duration of the second stage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, time spent pushing, or number of women with spontaneous vaginal birth. There was no difference in 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 or admission to the NICU.²⁶

With regard to maternal positioning during the second stage, a Cochrane systematic review found benefits for upright posture, including a very small reduction in the duration of the second stage, reduction in episiotomy rates, and reduction in assisted deliveries.³⁷ There was an increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL and possibly an increased risk in second-degree tears.³⁷ Compared with women allocated to lying down, women in the upright position during the second stage with epidural analgesia had significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births. There was no difference in operative vaginal delivery, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), infant Apgar score of less than 4 at 5 minutes, and maternal fecal incontinence at 1 year.²⁸

Continue to: Maternal support person...

 

 

Maternal support person

Continuous support during labor may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labor, and decreased cesarean birth.²⁹ In a randomized trial of 412 healthy nulliparous women, women in labor were assigned to either a support group that received continuous support from a doula or an observed group that was monitored by an inconspicuous observer. Continuous labor support significantly reduced the rate of CDs and forceps deliveries.^30,36 Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, doulas have found innovative ways to continue to provide this essential support through virtual health.³⁸

Prevention of perineal tears

Evidence suggests that warm compresses, and massage, may reduce third- and fourth-degree perineal tears.³¹ A meta-analysis of observational studies showed a significant reduction in the risk of OASI.³²

Second stage steps: Recap

Throughout the second stage of labor, the decision to continue with expectant management or intervene with either an operative vaginal delivery or a CD is complex and requires consistent assessment and integration of multiple factors. An evidence-based approach to second stage labor management includes active pushing that is either Valsalva pushing or spontaneous, coached or uncoached, but most importantly, at the start of the second stage when a patient reaches complete dilation. Reassessment should occur at regular intervals to determine progress, after ensuring maternal and fetal well-being.

If there has been no advancement in station, an attempt at manual rotation or titration of epidural analgesia should be considered. Importantly, fetal descent with adequate pushing should be demonstrated throughout the second stage.

Additional considerations that improve outcomes include warm compresses or perineal massage to prevent third- and fourth-degree tears and the presence of a continuous support person to reduce the risk for an operative delivery.

Delivery should be expected within 2 hours for multiparous women and 3 hours for nulliparous women in the second stage. Prolonging the second stage beyond these thresholds should be individualized and occur only in the setting of assured maternal and fetal well-being.

CASE An alternative management strategy

Despite Ms. J.’s great active pushing effort for 60 minutes, the presenting part remains at 0 station and occiput transverse. Ms. J. is counseled regarding the risks and benefits of an attempt at manual rotation of the fetal head, and she wishes to proceed. The fetal position remains occiput transverse.

After another hour of active pushing, the FHR becomes Category II with repetitive variable decelerations. At this time, Ms. J. is informed that there has been no descent, and she is counseled on the risks and benefits of continued pushing versus CD. Through shared decision-making, she consents to a CD. She undergoes a primary CD without complication. The birth weight was 4,100 g, and 5- and 10-minute Apgar scores were 8 and 9, respectively. The umbilical cord arterial pH was 7.13. 

Ms. J. and her baby were discharged home on postoperative day 4. ●

More than one year after COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, the disease continues to persist, infecting more than 110 million individuals to date globally.¹ As new information emerges about the coronavirus, the literature on diagnosis and management also has grown exponentially over the last year, including specific guidance for obstetric populations. With abundant information available to health care providers, COVID-19 mobile apps have the advantage of summarizing and presenting information in an organized and easily accessible manner.²

This updated review expands on a previous article by Bogaert and Chen at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Using the same methodology, in March 2021 we searched the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores using the term “COVID.” The search yielded 230 unique applications available for download. We excluded apps that were primarily developed as geographic area-specific case trackers or personal symptom trackers (193), those that provide telemedicine services (7), and nonmedical apps or ones published in a language other than English (20).

Here, we focus on the 3 mobile apps previously discussed (CDC, My Osler, and Relief Central) and 7 additional apps (TABLE). Most summarize information on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus, and several also provide information on the COVID-19 vaccine. One app (COVID-19 Resource for Midwives) is specifically designed for obstetric providers, and 4 others (CDC, COVID-19 Protocols, Medscape, and WHO Academy) contain information on specific guidance for obstetric and gynecologic patient populations.

Each app was evaluated based on a condensed version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and special features).⁴

We hope that these mobile apps will assist the ObGyn health care provider in continuing to care for patients during this pandemic.

More than one year after COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, the disease continues to persist, infecting more than 110 million individuals to date globally.¹ As new information emerges about the coronavirus, the literature on diagnosis and management also has grown exponentially over the last year, including specific guidance for obstetric populations. With abundant information available to health care providers, COVID-19 mobile apps have the advantage of summarizing and presenting information in an organized and easily accessible manner.²

This updated review expands on a previous article by Bogaert and Chen at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Using the same methodology, in March 2021 we searched the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores using the term “COVID.” The search yielded 230 unique applications available for download. We excluded apps that were primarily developed as geographic area-specific case trackers or personal symptom trackers (193), those that provide telemedicine services (7), and nonmedical apps or ones published in a language other than English (20).

Here, we focus on the 3 mobile apps previously discussed (CDC, My Osler, and Relief Central) and 7 additional apps (TABLE). Most summarize information on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus, and several also provide information on the COVID-19 vaccine. One app (COVID-19 Resource for Midwives) is specifically designed for obstetric providers, and 4 others (CDC, COVID-19 Protocols, Medscape, and WHO Academy) contain information on specific guidance for obstetric and gynecologic patient populations.

Each app was evaluated based on a condensed version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and special features).⁴

We hope that these mobile apps will assist the ObGyn health care provider in continuing to care for patients during this pandemic.

More than one year after COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, the disease continues to persist, infecting more than 110 million individuals to date globally.¹ As new information emerges about the coronavirus, the literature on diagnosis and management also has grown exponentially over the last year, including specific guidance for obstetric populations. With abundant information available to health care providers, COVID-19 mobile apps have the advantage of summarizing and presenting information in an organized and easily accessible manner.²

This updated review expands on a previous article by Bogaert and Chen at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Using the same methodology, in March 2021 we searched the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores using the term “COVID.” The search yielded 230 unique applications available for download. We excluded apps that were primarily developed as geographic area-specific case trackers or personal symptom trackers (193), those that provide telemedicine services (7), and nonmedical apps or ones published in a language other than English (20).

Here, we focus on the 3 mobile apps previously discussed (CDC, My Osler, and Relief Central) and 7 additional apps (TABLE). Most summarize information on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus, and several also provide information on the COVID-19 vaccine. One app (COVID-19 Resource for Midwives) is specifically designed for obstetric providers, and 4 others (CDC, COVID-19 Protocols, Medscape, and WHO Academy) contain information on specific guidance for obstetric and gynecologic patient populations.

Each app was evaluated based on a condensed version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and special features).⁴

We hope that these mobile apps will assist the ObGyn health care provider in continuing to care for patients during this pandemic.

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
• Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
• Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling
• Retroperitoneal anatomy and parametrial dissection in robotic uterine artery-sparing radical trachelectomy

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.