Ob.Gyn. News

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Transgender men who were assigned female sex at birth show a similar response to ovarian stimulation as cisgender women, even after using testosterone, shows the first formal study of its kind in this patient group.

The transgender patients each had an average of 20 eggs retrieved, and all who transferred embryos eventually achieved a successful pregnancy and delivery, “representing the largest cohort of transgender male patients to be described in the literature thus far,” wrote Nina Resetkova, MD, and colleagues in their article, published in Fertility and Sterility.

The research has been hailed as groundbreaking.

Dr. Resetkova, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said in an interview that “these new data show it is reasonable for transmen [female-to-male transition], even those who have used testosterone for some time, to undergo assisted reproductive technology [ART].

“We’ve found that there isn’t a decrease in oocyte retrieval and may actually be a slight increase. We found this to be remarkable,” she said, emphasizing that these findings should be very reassuring for transgender male patients concerned about fertility.

“Transmales worry that they’ve thrown in the towel, and by committing to testosterone have started on a pathway with no return, but these data suggest they still have options,” Dr. Resetkova explained.

“Our study shows that these patients can have ovarian stimulation outcomes that are similar to those of cisgender counterparts, and this seems to be true even in cases of patients who have already initiated hormonal transition with the use of testosterone,” she said.

The researcher hopes the results will encourage more referrals for transgender men wishing to explore their fertility options. “Previously, many doctors were reluctant to refer to a fertility practice if their transmale patient had already started testosterone therapy or they had been on it for several years,” she said.

In a comment, Joshua Safer, MD, a spokesperson on transgender issues for the Endocrine Society, said that “fertility compromise may represent the single largest risk of medical treatment for some transgender persons. At meetings and in personal communications, several clinical groups have reported successful egg harvest from transgender men.

“However, this is the first careful study of a defined cohort published formally. As such, it serves as an important reference in advancing transgender medical care,” noted Dr. Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

Need for guidance

Previously, there has been an assumption that transgender individuals were not interested in maintaining their reproductive potential, but this has proven untrue. “Several recent studies have demonstrated that transgender people do desire parenthood, or at the least wish to preserve that possibility,” noted Dr. Resetkova and colleagues.

Both the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology have issued opinions that transgender patients should have the same access to fertility options as cisgender patients and that fertility preservation options should be discussed before gender transition, they noted.

The first and key intervention needed is the ability to preserve fertility through the cryopreservation of gametes before medical or surgical transition. In transgender men, this can be done via oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.

Dr. Resetkova and the team at Boston IVF realized there was no published evidence, bar a couple of case reports, to guide clinicians caring for transgender men who wanted to preserve their fertility.

To help fill the research gap, they drew data from a retrospective cohort using electronic medical records from a single large in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic. The search was conducted from January 2010 to July 2018, because the first transgender man was treated at the clinic in 2010.

To be included in the study, the patient had to identify as a transgender man and have completed an ovarian stimulation cycle for oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or intended uterine transfer.

“This is the first study to describe transgender cycle parameters and outcomes in such detail and scope,” the authors noted in their article.

The study aimed to investigate ART outcomes in a female-to-male transgender cohort (n = 26) who wished to preserve fertility through egg freezing and/or undergo IVF with the intention of pregnancy.

Each transgender man was matched with five cisgender women for age, body mass index, and anti-Müllerian hormone level, and egg yield was compared. The 130 cisgender women were in straight relationships where there was difficulty conceiving, mostly because of male-factor, or tubal-factor, infertility; cisgender women with ovulatory dysfunction were excluded.

Egg harvest and T

The transgender patients were aged 14-39 years, with an average age at cycle start of 28 years. Some patients had not yet undergone any form of medical transition but planned to do so after ART.

The majority (61%) had received testosterone hormonal therapy, and a small number had undergone surgery, for example mastectomy and reconstruction, but none had undergone a hysterectomy or ovary removal (so-called “bottom” or gender-reassignment surgery).

Prior to ART, all patients taking testosterone came off the hormone on average 4 months prior to starting treatment. The mean time on testosterone before seeking ART treatment was 3.7 years and ranged from 3 months to 17 years.

“All patients had intact uterus and ovaries, and all patients had gone through puberty and had not received puberty blocking. This was required for ovarian stimulation and egg freezing,” Dr. Resetkova explained in an interview.

Researchers tracked patient records for outcomes, including oocyte yield, number of mature oocytes, total gonadotropin dose, and peak estradiol levels.

A mean of 19.9 +/– 8.7 oocytes were retrieved per cycle in the transgender cohort, compared with 15.9 +/– 9.6 in the cisgender female group; peak estradiol levels were similar between the two groups. However, the total dose of gonadotropins used was higher in the transgender group compared with the cisgender group (3,892 IU vs. 2,599 IU).

Of the 26 transgender men, 16 had egg preservation (oocyte banking) only. Seven couples had fresh or frozen embryo transfers, with all achieving live births.

Among the patients who planned for IVF with embryo transfer, two intended to carry the pregnancy themselves and the remaining five transferred embryos to their cisgender female partner.

The authors noted that many of the transgender patients who ultimately did not choose to proceed with treatment did so because of the need to stop testosterone therapy before initiating a cycle or the burden of cost.

“For many transgender patients, stopping androgen therapy can be both physically and psychologically distressing, especially because many experience the resumption of menses,” they observed.

“A logical follow-up question is whether ovarian stimulation can be done with any measure of success without the cessation of testosterone,” they noted.

“Although our findings are certainly reassuring for patients who have already initiated androgens, they were still all required to stop therapy to proceed with stimulation. This is a barrier to access that should be investigated, and if overcome may increase utilization of ART by transgender male patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Safer said that, to his knowledge, “a couple of fertility groups ... have been clear that the egg harvest could take place while the transgender men were using testosterone.”

Higher yield

The results with regard to the use of testosterone prior to ART were particularly enlightening, said Dr. Resetkova, who noted that testosterone therapy did not seem to affect ovarian stimulation.

“Before this study, we did not know if long-term testosterone use had a negative impact on egg reserve but, remarkably, testosterone does not appear to have an effect on the ovarian reserve as measured by egg count,” she noted, although she acknowledged that the “study is small.”

“In fact, in some ways, it looks like testosterone might even have a beneficial effect on egg count with a trend towards a higher number of eggs in the transmales who used it,” she added.

But this is “speculative,” she acknowledged, given the low numbers.

Reflecting on why long-term testosterone use may have shown a trend towards greater egg retrieval, Dr. Resetkova explained that the environment might be more similar to an individual with underlying elevated testosterone as seen in polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she noted these patients typically have a higher egg yield during IVF therapy.

Commenting on the higher doses of gonadotropins used in transgender patients, Dr. Resetkova suggested there could be various reasons for this, given that dosing was at the physician’s discretion, including the possibility that they knew the patient only had one chance and therefore higher doses of gonadotropins may have been administered.

Furthermore, each round of treatment is expensive. The researcher stressed, however, there was no conclusion in this respect based on their data.

Puberty blocking and fertility

When asked whether a transgender man who had undergone puberty blocking before transitioning (i.e., someone who had not gone through natural puberty) would be able to follow a similar course to pregnancy as the study participants, Dr. Resetkova acknowledged that is a more challenging area.

“We have little data so it’s hard to be conclusive, but it’s unlikely these patients would have mature hormonal responses and the ovaries might be in a naive state,” she hypothesized. “I don’t know that they would retain so many options as someone who had gone through natural puberty.”

“However, there are research protocols in place at some academic institutions for transgender patients planning to undergo puberty blocking,” she observed.

Finally, referring to individuals who transition from male to female using estrogen therapy, Dr. Resetkova said that the quality of sperm production might be impaired with long-term estrogen exposure. She added that other centers are looking at this.

“As transgender individuals increasingly seek access to reproductive services, we seek to shed light on the optimal way to provide effective care to these patients,” Dr. Dr. Resetkova and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Resetkova has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Resetkova N et al. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:858-65.

Transgender men who were assigned female sex at birth show a similar response to ovarian stimulation as cisgender women, even after using testosterone, shows the first formal study of its kind in this patient group.

The transgender patients each had an average of 20 eggs retrieved, and all who transferred embryos eventually achieved a successful pregnancy and delivery, “representing the largest cohort of transgender male patients to be described in the literature thus far,” wrote Nina Resetkova, MD, and colleagues in their article, published in Fertility and Sterility.

The research has been hailed as groundbreaking.

Dr. Resetkova, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said in an interview that “these new data show it is reasonable for transmen [female-to-male transition], even those who have used testosterone for some time, to undergo assisted reproductive technology [ART].

“We’ve found that there isn’t a decrease in oocyte retrieval and may actually be a slight increase. We found this to be remarkable,” she said, emphasizing that these findings should be very reassuring for transgender male patients concerned about fertility.

“Transmales worry that they’ve thrown in the towel, and by committing to testosterone have started on a pathway with no return, but these data suggest they still have options,” Dr. Resetkova explained.

“Our study shows that these patients can have ovarian stimulation outcomes that are similar to those of cisgender counterparts, and this seems to be true even in cases of patients who have already initiated hormonal transition with the use of testosterone,” she said.

The researcher hopes the results will encourage more referrals for transgender men wishing to explore their fertility options. “Previously, many doctors were reluctant to refer to a fertility practice if their transmale patient had already started testosterone therapy or they had been on it for several years,” she said.

In a comment, Joshua Safer, MD, a spokesperson on transgender issues for the Endocrine Society, said that “fertility compromise may represent the single largest risk of medical treatment for some transgender persons. At meetings and in personal communications, several clinical groups have reported successful egg harvest from transgender men.

“However, this is the first careful study of a defined cohort published formally. As such, it serves as an important reference in advancing transgender medical care,” noted Dr. Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

Need for guidance

Previously, there has been an assumption that transgender individuals were not interested in maintaining their reproductive potential, but this has proven untrue. “Several recent studies have demonstrated that transgender people do desire parenthood, or at the least wish to preserve that possibility,” noted Dr. Resetkova and colleagues.

Both the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology have issued opinions that transgender patients should have the same access to fertility options as cisgender patients and that fertility preservation options should be discussed before gender transition, they noted.

The first and key intervention needed is the ability to preserve fertility through the cryopreservation of gametes before medical or surgical transition. In transgender men, this can be done via oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.

Dr. Resetkova and the team at Boston IVF realized there was no published evidence, bar a couple of case reports, to guide clinicians caring for transgender men who wanted to preserve their fertility.

To help fill the research gap, they drew data from a retrospective cohort using electronic medical records from a single large in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic. The search was conducted from January 2010 to July 2018, because the first transgender man was treated at the clinic in 2010.

To be included in the study, the patient had to identify as a transgender man and have completed an ovarian stimulation cycle for oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or intended uterine transfer.

“This is the first study to describe transgender cycle parameters and outcomes in such detail and scope,” the authors noted in their article.

The study aimed to investigate ART outcomes in a female-to-male transgender cohort (n = 26) who wished to preserve fertility through egg freezing and/or undergo IVF with the intention of pregnancy.

Each transgender man was matched with five cisgender women for age, body mass index, and anti-Müllerian hormone level, and egg yield was compared. The 130 cisgender women were in straight relationships where there was difficulty conceiving, mostly because of male-factor, or tubal-factor, infertility; cisgender women with ovulatory dysfunction were excluded.

Egg harvest and T

The transgender patients were aged 14-39 years, with an average age at cycle start of 28 years. Some patients had not yet undergone any form of medical transition but planned to do so after ART.

The majority (61%) had received testosterone hormonal therapy, and a small number had undergone surgery, for example mastectomy and reconstruction, but none had undergone a hysterectomy or ovary removal (so-called “bottom” or gender-reassignment surgery).

Prior to ART, all patients taking testosterone came off the hormone on average 4 months prior to starting treatment. The mean time on testosterone before seeking ART treatment was 3.7 years and ranged from 3 months to 17 years.

“All patients had intact uterus and ovaries, and all patients had gone through puberty and had not received puberty blocking. This was required for ovarian stimulation and egg freezing,” Dr. Resetkova explained in an interview.

Researchers tracked patient records for outcomes, including oocyte yield, number of mature oocytes, total gonadotropin dose, and peak estradiol levels.

A mean of 19.9 +/– 8.7 oocytes were retrieved per cycle in the transgender cohort, compared with 15.9 +/– 9.6 in the cisgender female group; peak estradiol levels were similar between the two groups. However, the total dose of gonadotropins used was higher in the transgender group compared with the cisgender group (3,892 IU vs. 2,599 IU).

Of the 26 transgender men, 16 had egg preservation (oocyte banking) only. Seven couples had fresh or frozen embryo transfers, with all achieving live births.

Among the patients who planned for IVF with embryo transfer, two intended to carry the pregnancy themselves and the remaining five transferred embryos to their cisgender female partner.

The authors noted that many of the transgender patients who ultimately did not choose to proceed with treatment did so because of the need to stop testosterone therapy before initiating a cycle or the burden of cost.

“For many transgender patients, stopping androgen therapy can be both physically and psychologically distressing, especially because many experience the resumption of menses,” they observed.

“A logical follow-up question is whether ovarian stimulation can be done with any measure of success without the cessation of testosterone,” they noted.

“Although our findings are certainly reassuring for patients who have already initiated androgens, they were still all required to stop therapy to proceed with stimulation. This is a barrier to access that should be investigated, and if overcome may increase utilization of ART by transgender male patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Safer said that, to his knowledge, “a couple of fertility groups ... have been clear that the egg harvest could take place while the transgender men were using testosterone.”

Higher yield

The results with regard to the use of testosterone prior to ART were particularly enlightening, said Dr. Resetkova, who noted that testosterone therapy did not seem to affect ovarian stimulation.

“Before this study, we did not know if long-term testosterone use had a negative impact on egg reserve but, remarkably, testosterone does not appear to have an effect on the ovarian reserve as measured by egg count,” she noted, although she acknowledged that the “study is small.”

“In fact, in some ways, it looks like testosterone might even have a beneficial effect on egg count with a trend towards a higher number of eggs in the transmales who used it,” she added.

But this is “speculative,” she acknowledged, given the low numbers.

Reflecting on why long-term testosterone use may have shown a trend towards greater egg retrieval, Dr. Resetkova explained that the environment might be more similar to an individual with underlying elevated testosterone as seen in polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she noted these patients typically have a higher egg yield during IVF therapy.

Commenting on the higher doses of gonadotropins used in transgender patients, Dr. Resetkova suggested there could be various reasons for this, given that dosing was at the physician’s discretion, including the possibility that they knew the patient only had one chance and therefore higher doses of gonadotropins may have been administered.

Furthermore, each round of treatment is expensive. The researcher stressed, however, there was no conclusion in this respect based on their data.

Puberty blocking and fertility

When asked whether a transgender man who had undergone puberty blocking before transitioning (i.e., someone who had not gone through natural puberty) would be able to follow a similar course to pregnancy as the study participants, Dr. Resetkova acknowledged that is a more challenging area.

“We have little data so it’s hard to be conclusive, but it’s unlikely these patients would have mature hormonal responses and the ovaries might be in a naive state,” she hypothesized. “I don’t know that they would retain so many options as someone who had gone through natural puberty.”

“However, there are research protocols in place at some academic institutions for transgender patients planning to undergo puberty blocking,” she observed.

Finally, referring to individuals who transition from male to female using estrogen therapy, Dr. Resetkova said that the quality of sperm production might be impaired with long-term estrogen exposure. She added that other centers are looking at this.

“As transgender individuals increasingly seek access to reproductive services, we seek to shed light on the optimal way to provide effective care to these patients,” Dr. Dr. Resetkova and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Resetkova has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Resetkova N et al. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:858-65.

Transgender men who were assigned female sex at birth show a similar response to ovarian stimulation as cisgender women, even after using testosterone, shows the first formal study of its kind in this patient group.

The transgender patients each had an average of 20 eggs retrieved, and all who transferred embryos eventually achieved a successful pregnancy and delivery, “representing the largest cohort of transgender male patients to be described in the literature thus far,” wrote Nina Resetkova, MD, and colleagues in their article, published in Fertility and Sterility.

The research has been hailed as groundbreaking.

Dr. Resetkova, a reproductive endocrinologist at Boston IVF, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said in an interview that “these new data show it is reasonable for transmen [female-to-male transition], even those who have used testosterone for some time, to undergo assisted reproductive technology [ART].

“We’ve found that there isn’t a decrease in oocyte retrieval and may actually be a slight increase. We found this to be remarkable,” she said, emphasizing that these findings should be very reassuring for transgender male patients concerned about fertility.

“Transmales worry that they’ve thrown in the towel, and by committing to testosterone have started on a pathway with no return, but these data suggest they still have options,” Dr. Resetkova explained.

“Our study shows that these patients can have ovarian stimulation outcomes that are similar to those of cisgender counterparts, and this seems to be true even in cases of patients who have already initiated hormonal transition with the use of testosterone,” she said.

The researcher hopes the results will encourage more referrals for transgender men wishing to explore their fertility options. “Previously, many doctors were reluctant to refer to a fertility practice if their transmale patient had already started testosterone therapy or they had been on it for several years,” she said.

In a comment, Joshua Safer, MD, a spokesperson on transgender issues for the Endocrine Society, said that “fertility compromise may represent the single largest risk of medical treatment for some transgender persons. At meetings and in personal communications, several clinical groups have reported successful egg harvest from transgender men.

“However, this is the first careful study of a defined cohort published formally. As such, it serves as an important reference in advancing transgender medical care,” noted Dr. Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York.

Need for guidance

Previously, there has been an assumption that transgender individuals were not interested in maintaining their reproductive potential, but this has proven untrue. “Several recent studies have demonstrated that transgender people do desire parenthood, or at the least wish to preserve that possibility,” noted Dr. Resetkova and colleagues.

Both the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology have issued opinions that transgender patients should have the same access to fertility options as cisgender patients and that fertility preservation options should be discussed before gender transition, they noted.

The first and key intervention needed is the ability to preserve fertility through the cryopreservation of gametes before medical or surgical transition. In transgender men, this can be done via oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.

Dr. Resetkova and the team at Boston IVF realized there was no published evidence, bar a couple of case reports, to guide clinicians caring for transgender men who wanted to preserve their fertility.

To help fill the research gap, they drew data from a retrospective cohort using electronic medical records from a single large in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic. The search was conducted from January 2010 to July 2018, because the first transgender man was treated at the clinic in 2010.

To be included in the study, the patient had to identify as a transgender man and have completed an ovarian stimulation cycle for oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or intended uterine transfer.

“This is the first study to describe transgender cycle parameters and outcomes in such detail and scope,” the authors noted in their article.

The study aimed to investigate ART outcomes in a female-to-male transgender cohort (n = 26) who wished to preserve fertility through egg freezing and/or undergo IVF with the intention of pregnancy.

Each transgender man was matched with five cisgender women for age, body mass index, and anti-Müllerian hormone level, and egg yield was compared. The 130 cisgender women were in straight relationships where there was difficulty conceiving, mostly because of male-factor, or tubal-factor, infertility; cisgender women with ovulatory dysfunction were excluded.

Egg harvest and T

The transgender patients were aged 14-39 years, with an average age at cycle start of 28 years. Some patients had not yet undergone any form of medical transition but planned to do so after ART.

The majority (61%) had received testosterone hormonal therapy, and a small number had undergone surgery, for example mastectomy and reconstruction, but none had undergone a hysterectomy or ovary removal (so-called “bottom” or gender-reassignment surgery).

Prior to ART, all patients taking testosterone came off the hormone on average 4 months prior to starting treatment. The mean time on testosterone before seeking ART treatment was 3.7 years and ranged from 3 months to 17 years.

“All patients had intact uterus and ovaries, and all patients had gone through puberty and had not received puberty blocking. This was required for ovarian stimulation and egg freezing,” Dr. Resetkova explained in an interview.

Researchers tracked patient records for outcomes, including oocyte yield, number of mature oocytes, total gonadotropin dose, and peak estradiol levels.

A mean of 19.9 +/– 8.7 oocytes were retrieved per cycle in the transgender cohort, compared with 15.9 +/– 9.6 in the cisgender female group; peak estradiol levels were similar between the two groups. However, the total dose of gonadotropins used was higher in the transgender group compared with the cisgender group (3,892 IU vs. 2,599 IU).

Of the 26 transgender men, 16 had egg preservation (oocyte banking) only. Seven couples had fresh or frozen embryo transfers, with all achieving live births.

Among the patients who planned for IVF with embryo transfer, two intended to carry the pregnancy themselves and the remaining five transferred embryos to their cisgender female partner.

The authors noted that many of the transgender patients who ultimately did not choose to proceed with treatment did so because of the need to stop testosterone therapy before initiating a cycle or the burden of cost.

“For many transgender patients, stopping androgen therapy can be both physically and psychologically distressing, especially because many experience the resumption of menses,” they observed.

“A logical follow-up question is whether ovarian stimulation can be done with any measure of success without the cessation of testosterone,” they noted.

“Although our findings are certainly reassuring for patients who have already initiated androgens, they were still all required to stop therapy to proceed with stimulation. This is a barrier to access that should be investigated, and if overcome may increase utilization of ART by transgender male patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Safer said that, to his knowledge, “a couple of fertility groups ... have been clear that the egg harvest could take place while the transgender men were using testosterone.”

Higher yield

The results with regard to the use of testosterone prior to ART were particularly enlightening, said Dr. Resetkova, who noted that testosterone therapy did not seem to affect ovarian stimulation.

“Before this study, we did not know if long-term testosterone use had a negative impact on egg reserve but, remarkably, testosterone does not appear to have an effect on the ovarian reserve as measured by egg count,” she noted, although she acknowledged that the “study is small.”

“In fact, in some ways, it looks like testosterone might even have a beneficial effect on egg count with a trend towards a higher number of eggs in the transmales who used it,” she added.

But this is “speculative,” she acknowledged, given the low numbers.

Reflecting on why long-term testosterone use may have shown a trend towards greater egg retrieval, Dr. Resetkova explained that the environment might be more similar to an individual with underlying elevated testosterone as seen in polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she noted these patients typically have a higher egg yield during IVF therapy.

Commenting on the higher doses of gonadotropins used in transgender patients, Dr. Resetkova suggested there could be various reasons for this, given that dosing was at the physician’s discretion, including the possibility that they knew the patient only had one chance and therefore higher doses of gonadotropins may have been administered.

Furthermore, each round of treatment is expensive. The researcher stressed, however, there was no conclusion in this respect based on their data.

Puberty blocking and fertility

When asked whether a transgender man who had undergone puberty blocking before transitioning (i.e., someone who had not gone through natural puberty) would be able to follow a similar course to pregnancy as the study participants, Dr. Resetkova acknowledged that is a more challenging area.

“We have little data so it’s hard to be conclusive, but it’s unlikely these patients would have mature hormonal responses and the ovaries might be in a naive state,” she hypothesized. “I don’t know that they would retain so many options as someone who had gone through natural puberty.”

“However, there are research protocols in place at some academic institutions for transgender patients planning to undergo puberty blocking,” she observed.

Finally, referring to individuals who transition from male to female using estrogen therapy, Dr. Resetkova said that the quality of sperm production might be impaired with long-term estrogen exposure. She added that other centers are looking at this.

“As transgender individuals increasingly seek access to reproductive services, we seek to shed light on the optimal way to provide effective care to these patients,” Dr. Dr. Resetkova and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Resetkova has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Resetkova N et al. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:858-65.

Women with osteoporosis who received a single infusion of zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab (Prolia) maintained bone mineral density at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, based on data from 120 individuals.

Although denosumab is often prescribed for postmenopausal osteoporosis, its effects disappear when treatment ends, wrote Judith Everts-Graber, MD, of OsteoRheuma Bern (Switzerland), and colleagues. In addition, recent reports of increased fractures in osteoporotic women after denosumab discontinuation highlight the need for subsequent therapy, but no protocol has been established.

In a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, the investigators reviewed data from women aged older than 48 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab between Aug. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019. The women received four or more injections of 60 mg denosumab administered at 6-month intervals, followed by a single infusion of 5 mg zoledronate 6 months after the final denosumab injection. Patients were evaluated using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and vertebral fracture assessment every 2 years after starting denosumab; the average duration of treatment was 3 years.

At an average of 2.5 years after discontinuing denosumab, women who received zoledronate retained 66% of bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine, 49% at the total hip, and 57% at the femoral neck. In addition, three patients developed symptomatic single vertebral fractures and four patients developed peripheral fractures between 1 and 3 years after their last denosumab injections, but none of these patients sustained multiple fractures.

All bone loss occurred within 18 months of denosumab discontinuation, and no significant differences appeared between patients with gains in BMD greater than or less than 9%.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the lack of a control group, the researchers noted. However, they collected data from 11 of 28 patients who did not follow the treatment recommendations and did not receive zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab. “As expected, BMD of the lumbar spine and total hip decreased to baseline,” they wrote. In addition, 2 of the 11 patients experienced multiple vertebral fractures.

A single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate “may be a promising step in identifying sequential long-term treatment strategies for osteoporosis,” the researchers concluded. “Nevertheless, each patient requires an individualized surveillance and treatment plan after denosumab discontinuation, including BMD assessment, evaluation of bone turnover markers and consideration of individual clinical risk factors, in particular prevalent fragility fractures.”

The study was funded by OsteoRheuma Bern. The researchers reported having no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Everts-Graber J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3962.