OBG Management

The results of the highly anticipated Antenatal Late Preterm Study recently have become available.¹ Data from this randomized controlled trial, conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, demonstrated that administration of betamethasone to women at risk for preterm delivery between 34 weeks 0 days and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation significantly reduces the rate of neonatal respiratory complications. It may represent the largest study of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to date, with 2,827 infants studied, and its results inevitably lead to the logical practical question: Should ACS use be extended beyond the 34 weeks’ gestation limit previously recommended by professional guidelines in the United States²?

There are some issues that bear discussion before such a significant change in standard of care should be promoted.²

Antenatal Late Preterm Study outcomesThe primary outcome in the study was a composite end point describing the need for respiratory support within 72 hours after birth. Based on a pilot study, the investigators had anticipated a 33% decrease in the rate of the primary outcome; however, the reduction was only 20% (relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66−0.97). Although the effect size was statistically significant, one could question the clinical relevance of such a small difference.

A 33% reduction effect, more consistent with the preliminary expectations, was noted in the prespecified secondary composite outcome of severe respiratory complications (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53−0.84). Occurrences included in the secondary composite outcome that also showed significant rate reductions were:

The reported reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02−0.92) cannot plausibly be attributed to ACS. Randomized data aggregated by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews³ do not show improvement in chronic lung disease with ACS use. Moreover, the authors recognize that the assessment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia at only 28 days of life is only partially informative and that longer childhood follow-up is required to confirm the finding.

We recommend caution before changing current practiceWe propose prudence with ACS use after 34 weeks’ gestation for the following reasons: the increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemia associated with ACS, the increased risk for ACS-related harm in term-born babies, and safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm period.

Evidence shows an increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemiaThe most profound effect modification observed in the study was an adverse effect—namely, a 60% increase in neonatal hypoglycemia with ACS administration (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.37−1.87). The rate of neonatal hypoglycemia was 24% in the ACS group, compared with 15% in the placebo group.

Results of prior studies have demonstrated either no increased risk of hypoglycemia with ACS use⁴⁻⁷ or a much smaller increase (from 4.2% to 5.7%).⁸ The higher rate of neonatal hypoglycemia seen in this study suggests the possibility that the late preterm population may be more vulnerable to the negative impact of ACS on neonatal glucose/insulin homeostasis. Presumed mechanisms of action are either maternal hyperglycemia or fetal adrenal suppression or both, with potential for fetal adrenal suppression resulting from betamethasone exposure to affect long-term metabolic outcomes.⁹

Of note, women with pregestational diabetes were excluded from the study and, in routine practice, inclusion of such patients may further increase the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.

There are few data on the prognostic significance of neonatal hypoglycemia in preterm infants, with the exception of a single study, the results of which show that it is associated with adverse neurodevelopment at 18 months of age.¹⁰

Data reveal increased risk for harm in term-born babiesIn spite of strict protocol specifications to increase the probability of delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation, 16% of women in the trial delivered at term. Investigators of prior randomized studies of ACS, aimed at reducing the risks of prematurity, have reported a rate of term delivery of about one-third,^4,11 and in routine practice, administration of ACS after 34 weeks may be associated with even higher rates of term delivery.

This is important because recent evidence shows an unfavorable impact of ACS exposure in term-born children.¹² The 5-year follow-up of the largest randomized trial in which multiple ACS courses were used noted that babies born at term had a 4-fold increased odds ratio for neurosensory disability.¹¹ There was no dose−response interaction, with the same adverse odds ratio after 1 or 4 additional ACS courses. This observation was consistent with a previously reported Swedish national cohort, pointing to an unfavorable impact of even a single course of ACS in term-born children, with a greater likelihood of harm than benefit.¹³

In a UK follow-up of children aged 8 to 15 years who were enrolled in an RCT of ACS before cesarean delivery at term, low academic achievement was significantly more common in the group whose mothers had received ACS.¹⁴ In another study of 304 children born at term after exposure to a single course of ACS, investigators noted significantly increased cortisol reactivity to acute psychological stress at ages 6 to 11 years in the ACS-exposed patients, compared with 212 babies of women with threatened preterm labor who did not receive ACS and 372 babies from uncomplicated term pregnancies.¹⁵

The relevance of such study findings extends beyond childhood given the fact that elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis reactivity has been linked to the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome and depression in adult life.¹⁶ As recently as 2015, investigators of a randomized trial of ACS in 6 low- and middle-income countries highlighted their concern regarding “potentially harmful use of antenatal corticosteroids for infants not delivered preterm.”¹⁷

There are safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm periodThe effects of ACS are more pleiotropic than those reflected in a lower incidence of respiratory difficulties. Knowledge of the overall consequences of ACS exposure in infants born late-preterm or at term is still limited. The close-to-term fetus exposed to exogenous corticosteroids is also exposed to the physiologic endogenous surge of cortisol known to occur in the maternal circulation in late pregnancy, which reaches levels 3 times higher than those seen in nonpregnant women.¹⁸ Although placental 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 plays a protective role by allowing no more than 10% to 20% of maternal corticosteroids to cross the placenta, fetal overexposure from concomitant exogenous maternal corticosteroid administration remains a theoretical concern close to term. This is especially worrisome if there is a gestational age−related increase in the sensitivity to corticosteroid-induced in utero fetal programming. It has been reported that fetal overexposure to corticosteroids in late pregnancy can permanently increase the activity of the HPA-axis, with likely consequences in adult life.¹⁹

Another concern relates to oligodendrocytes development. Although the neuronal division process in humans usually is completed by 24 weeks’ gestation, the most rapid growth for oligodendrocytes occurs between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation; these are the cells responsible for the synthesis of myelin. Overexposure to corticosteroids at this vulnerable time in the late preterm fetus potentially may have unanticipated negative neurologic consequences.²⁰

Where should future studies focus?There is clear neonatal benefit from a single course of ACS given to women who will deliver before 34 weeks’ gestation. It is widely accepted, based on the evidence provided by the 30-year follow-up of the cohort of 534 participants from the Auckland trial (the longest follow-up for any pregnancy trial), that administration of ACS at less than 34 weeks’ gestation is not associated with any obvious major developmental risk.²¹⁻²³

However, the reassurances provided by the Auckland cohort should be neither directly extrapolated to the administration of ACS in the late preterm period nor applied to term-born babies exposed to ACS, for the simple reason that these subgroups never have been analyzed separately. The risk:benefit ratio of ACS use in the late-preterm period is as yet unknown, and in term-born babies the ratio may be unfavorable.

Follow-up studies are neededWe consider that there is a vital need for long-term follow-up studies. The focus of research on the effects of ACS no longer is on the immediate neonatal outcomes and now is on safety and the long-term outcomes of this exposure.

Bottom lineWe regard the large, high-quality study conducted by the NICHD MFMU Network¹ as an opportunity to answer current concerns. It is hoped that the resources necessaryfor in-depth follow-up of the children involved in this study will be provided to the investigators and to the NICHD. It is only with such follow-up that mid- and long-term adverse effects can be assessed. We believe that, at a minimum, mid-term follow-up data should be available before it is wise to make any definitive recommendations for a sweeping change in clinical practice.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The results of the highly anticipated Antenatal Late Preterm Study recently have become available.¹ Data from this randomized controlled trial, conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, demonstrated that administration of betamethasone to women at risk for preterm delivery between 34 weeks 0 days and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation significantly reduces the rate of neonatal respiratory complications. It may represent the largest study of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to date, with 2,827 infants studied, and its results inevitably lead to the logical practical question: Should ACS use be extended beyond the 34 weeks’ gestation limit previously recommended by professional guidelines in the United States²?

There are some issues that bear discussion before such a significant change in standard of care should be promoted.²

Antenatal Late Preterm Study outcomesThe primary outcome in the study was a composite end point describing the need for respiratory support within 72 hours after birth. Based on a pilot study, the investigators had anticipated a 33% decrease in the rate of the primary outcome; however, the reduction was only 20% (relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66−0.97). Although the effect size was statistically significant, one could question the clinical relevance of such a small difference.

A 33% reduction effect, more consistent with the preliminary expectations, was noted in the prespecified secondary composite outcome of severe respiratory complications (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53−0.84). Occurrences included in the secondary composite outcome that also showed significant rate reductions were:

The reported reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02−0.92) cannot plausibly be attributed to ACS. Randomized data aggregated by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews³ do not show improvement in chronic lung disease with ACS use. Moreover, the authors recognize that the assessment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia at only 28 days of life is only partially informative and that longer childhood follow-up is required to confirm the finding.

We recommend caution before changing current practiceWe propose prudence with ACS use after 34 weeks’ gestation for the following reasons: the increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemia associated with ACS, the increased risk for ACS-related harm in term-born babies, and safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm period.

Evidence shows an increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemiaThe most profound effect modification observed in the study was an adverse effect—namely, a 60% increase in neonatal hypoglycemia with ACS administration (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.37−1.87). The rate of neonatal hypoglycemia was 24% in the ACS group, compared with 15% in the placebo group.

Results of prior studies have demonstrated either no increased risk of hypoglycemia with ACS use⁴⁻⁷ or a much smaller increase (from 4.2% to 5.7%).⁸ The higher rate of neonatal hypoglycemia seen in this study suggests the possibility that the late preterm population may be more vulnerable to the negative impact of ACS on neonatal glucose/insulin homeostasis. Presumed mechanisms of action are either maternal hyperglycemia or fetal adrenal suppression or both, with potential for fetal adrenal suppression resulting from betamethasone exposure to affect long-term metabolic outcomes.⁹

Of note, women with pregestational diabetes were excluded from the study and, in routine practice, inclusion of such patients may further increase the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.

There are few data on the prognostic significance of neonatal hypoglycemia in preterm infants, with the exception of a single study, the results of which show that it is associated with adverse neurodevelopment at 18 months of age.¹⁰

Data reveal increased risk for harm in term-born babiesIn spite of strict protocol specifications to increase the probability of delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation, 16% of women in the trial delivered at term. Investigators of prior randomized studies of ACS, aimed at reducing the risks of prematurity, have reported a rate of term delivery of about one-third,^4,11 and in routine practice, administration of ACS after 34 weeks may be associated with even higher rates of term delivery.

This is important because recent evidence shows an unfavorable impact of ACS exposure in term-born children.¹² The 5-year follow-up of the largest randomized trial in which multiple ACS courses were used noted that babies born at term had a 4-fold increased odds ratio for neurosensory disability.¹¹ There was no dose−response interaction, with the same adverse odds ratio after 1 or 4 additional ACS courses. This observation was consistent with a previously reported Swedish national cohort, pointing to an unfavorable impact of even a single course of ACS in term-born children, with a greater likelihood of harm than benefit.¹³

In a UK follow-up of children aged 8 to 15 years who were enrolled in an RCT of ACS before cesarean delivery at term, low academic achievement was significantly more common in the group whose mothers had received ACS.¹⁴ In another study of 304 children born at term after exposure to a single course of ACS, investigators noted significantly increased cortisol reactivity to acute psychological stress at ages 6 to 11 years in the ACS-exposed patients, compared with 212 babies of women with threatened preterm labor who did not receive ACS and 372 babies from uncomplicated term pregnancies.¹⁵

The relevance of such study findings extends beyond childhood given the fact that elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis reactivity has been linked to the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome and depression in adult life.¹⁶ As recently as 2015, investigators of a randomized trial of ACS in 6 low- and middle-income countries highlighted their concern regarding “potentially harmful use of antenatal corticosteroids for infants not delivered preterm.”¹⁷

There are safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm periodThe effects of ACS are more pleiotropic than those reflected in a lower incidence of respiratory difficulties. Knowledge of the overall consequences of ACS exposure in infants born late-preterm or at term is still limited. The close-to-term fetus exposed to exogenous corticosteroids is also exposed to the physiologic endogenous surge of cortisol known to occur in the maternal circulation in late pregnancy, which reaches levels 3 times higher than those seen in nonpregnant women.¹⁸ Although placental 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 plays a protective role by allowing no more than 10% to 20% of maternal corticosteroids to cross the placenta, fetal overexposure from concomitant exogenous maternal corticosteroid administration remains a theoretical concern close to term. This is especially worrisome if there is a gestational age−related increase in the sensitivity to corticosteroid-induced in utero fetal programming. It has been reported that fetal overexposure to corticosteroids in late pregnancy can permanently increase the activity of the HPA-axis, with likely consequences in adult life.¹⁹

Another concern relates to oligodendrocytes development. Although the neuronal division process in humans usually is completed by 24 weeks’ gestation, the most rapid growth for oligodendrocytes occurs between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation; these are the cells responsible for the synthesis of myelin. Overexposure to corticosteroids at this vulnerable time in the late preterm fetus potentially may have unanticipated negative neurologic consequences.²⁰

Where should future studies focus?There is clear neonatal benefit from a single course of ACS given to women who will deliver before 34 weeks’ gestation. It is widely accepted, based on the evidence provided by the 30-year follow-up of the cohort of 534 participants from the Auckland trial (the longest follow-up for any pregnancy trial), that administration of ACS at less than 34 weeks’ gestation is not associated with any obvious major developmental risk.²¹⁻²³

However, the reassurances provided by the Auckland cohort should be neither directly extrapolated to the administration of ACS in the late preterm period nor applied to term-born babies exposed to ACS, for the simple reason that these subgroups never have been analyzed separately. The risk:benefit ratio of ACS use in the late-preterm period is as yet unknown, and in term-born babies the ratio may be unfavorable.

Follow-up studies are neededWe consider that there is a vital need for long-term follow-up studies. The focus of research on the effects of ACS no longer is on the immediate neonatal outcomes and now is on safety and the long-term outcomes of this exposure.

Bottom lineWe regard the large, high-quality study conducted by the NICHD MFMU Network¹ as an opportunity to answer current concerns. It is hoped that the resources necessaryfor in-depth follow-up of the children involved in this study will be provided to the investigators and to the NICHD. It is only with such follow-up that mid- and long-term adverse effects can be assessed. We believe that, at a minimum, mid-term follow-up data should be available before it is wise to make any definitive recommendations for a sweeping change in clinical practice.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The results of the highly anticipated Antenatal Late Preterm Study recently have become available.¹ Data from this randomized controlled trial, conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network, demonstrated that administration of betamethasone to women at risk for preterm delivery between 34 weeks 0 days and 36 weeks 6 days of gestation significantly reduces the rate of neonatal respiratory complications. It may represent the largest study of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to date, with 2,827 infants studied, and its results inevitably lead to the logical practical question: Should ACS use be extended beyond the 34 weeks’ gestation limit previously recommended by professional guidelines in the United States²?

There are some issues that bear discussion before such a significant change in standard of care should be promoted.²

Antenatal Late Preterm Study outcomesThe primary outcome in the study was a composite end point describing the need for respiratory support within 72 hours after birth. Based on a pilot study, the investigators had anticipated a 33% decrease in the rate of the primary outcome; however, the reduction was only 20% (relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66−0.97). Although the effect size was statistically significant, one could question the clinical relevance of such a small difference.

A 33% reduction effect, more consistent with the preliminary expectations, was noted in the prespecified secondary composite outcome of severe respiratory complications (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53−0.84). Occurrences included in the secondary composite outcome that also showed significant rate reductions were:

The reported reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02−0.92) cannot plausibly be attributed to ACS. Randomized data aggregated by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews³ do not show improvement in chronic lung disease with ACS use. Moreover, the authors recognize that the assessment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia at only 28 days of life is only partially informative and that longer childhood follow-up is required to confirm the finding.

We recommend caution before changing current practiceWe propose prudence with ACS use after 34 weeks’ gestation for the following reasons: the increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemia associated with ACS, the increased risk for ACS-related harm in term-born babies, and safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm period.

Evidence shows an increased risk for neonatal hypoglycemiaThe most profound effect modification observed in the study was an adverse effect—namely, a 60% increase in neonatal hypoglycemia with ACS administration (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.37−1.87). The rate of neonatal hypoglycemia was 24% in the ACS group, compared with 15% in the placebo group.

Results of prior studies have demonstrated either no increased risk of hypoglycemia with ACS use⁴⁻⁷ or a much smaller increase (from 4.2% to 5.7%).⁸ The higher rate of neonatal hypoglycemia seen in this study suggests the possibility that the late preterm population may be more vulnerable to the negative impact of ACS on neonatal glucose/insulin homeostasis. Presumed mechanisms of action are either maternal hyperglycemia or fetal adrenal suppression or both, with potential for fetal adrenal suppression resulting from betamethasone exposure to affect long-term metabolic outcomes.⁹

Of note, women with pregestational diabetes were excluded from the study and, in routine practice, inclusion of such patients may further increase the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.

There are few data on the prognostic significance of neonatal hypoglycemia in preterm infants, with the exception of a single study, the results of which show that it is associated with adverse neurodevelopment at 18 months of age.¹⁰

Data reveal increased risk for harm in term-born babiesIn spite of strict protocol specifications to increase the probability of delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation, 16% of women in the trial delivered at term. Investigators of prior randomized studies of ACS, aimed at reducing the risks of prematurity, have reported a rate of term delivery of about one-third,^4,11 and in routine practice, administration of ACS after 34 weeks may be associated with even higher rates of term delivery.

This is important because recent evidence shows an unfavorable impact of ACS exposure in term-born children.¹² The 5-year follow-up of the largest randomized trial in which multiple ACS courses were used noted that babies born at term had a 4-fold increased odds ratio for neurosensory disability.¹¹ There was no dose−response interaction, with the same adverse odds ratio after 1 or 4 additional ACS courses. This observation was consistent with a previously reported Swedish national cohort, pointing to an unfavorable impact of even a single course of ACS in term-born children, with a greater likelihood of harm than benefit.¹³

In a UK follow-up of children aged 8 to 15 years who were enrolled in an RCT of ACS before cesarean delivery at term, low academic achievement was significantly more common in the group whose mothers had received ACS.¹⁴ In another study of 304 children born at term after exposure to a single course of ACS, investigators noted significantly increased cortisol reactivity to acute psychological stress at ages 6 to 11 years in the ACS-exposed patients, compared with 212 babies of women with threatened preterm labor who did not receive ACS and 372 babies from uncomplicated term pregnancies.¹⁵

The relevance of such study findings extends beyond childhood given the fact that elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis reactivity has been linked to the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome and depression in adult life.¹⁶ As recently as 2015, investigators of a randomized trial of ACS in 6 low- and middle-income countries highlighted their concern regarding “potentially harmful use of antenatal corticosteroids for infants not delivered preterm.”¹⁷

There are safety concerns with ACS in the late preterm periodThe effects of ACS are more pleiotropic than those reflected in a lower incidence of respiratory difficulties. Knowledge of the overall consequences of ACS exposure in infants born late-preterm or at term is still limited. The close-to-term fetus exposed to exogenous corticosteroids is also exposed to the physiologic endogenous surge of cortisol known to occur in the maternal circulation in late pregnancy, which reaches levels 3 times higher than those seen in nonpregnant women.¹⁸ Although placental 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 plays a protective role by allowing no more than 10% to 20% of maternal corticosteroids to cross the placenta, fetal overexposure from concomitant exogenous maternal corticosteroid administration remains a theoretical concern close to term. This is especially worrisome if there is a gestational age−related increase in the sensitivity to corticosteroid-induced in utero fetal programming. It has been reported that fetal overexposure to corticosteroids in late pregnancy can permanently increase the activity of the HPA-axis, with likely consequences in adult life.¹⁹

Another concern relates to oligodendrocytes development. Although the neuronal division process in humans usually is completed by 24 weeks’ gestation, the most rapid growth for oligodendrocytes occurs between 34 and 36 weeks’ gestation; these are the cells responsible for the synthesis of myelin. Overexposure to corticosteroids at this vulnerable time in the late preterm fetus potentially may have unanticipated negative neurologic consequences.²⁰

Where should future studies focus?There is clear neonatal benefit from a single course of ACS given to women who will deliver before 34 weeks’ gestation. It is widely accepted, based on the evidence provided by the 30-year follow-up of the cohort of 534 participants from the Auckland trial (the longest follow-up for any pregnancy trial), that administration of ACS at less than 34 weeks’ gestation is not associated with any obvious major developmental risk.²¹⁻²³

However, the reassurances provided by the Auckland cohort should be neither directly extrapolated to the administration of ACS in the late preterm period nor applied to term-born babies exposed to ACS, for the simple reason that these subgroups never have been analyzed separately. The risk:benefit ratio of ACS use in the late-preterm period is as yet unknown, and in term-born babies the ratio may be unfavorable.

Follow-up studies are neededWe consider that there is a vital need for long-term follow-up studies. The focus of research on the effects of ACS no longer is on the immediate neonatal outcomes and now is on safety and the long-term outcomes of this exposure.

Bottom lineWe regard the large, high-quality study conducted by the NICHD MFMU Network¹ as an opportunity to answer current concerns. It is hoped that the resources necessaryfor in-depth follow-up of the children involved in this study will be provided to the investigators and to the NICHD. It is only with such follow-up that mid- and long-term adverse effects can be assessed. We believe that, at a minimum, mid-term follow-up data should be available before it is wise to make any definitive recommendations for a sweeping change in clinical practice.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

Today, “normal” aging is no longer acceptable. From aesthetics to physical, mental, and sexual health, the maturing population seeks effective minimally invasive and practical methods to halt time and reverse its adverse effects. Nowhere is this more apparent than when dealing with urinary and fecal incontinence, conditions that can be not only embarrassing to patients but also debilitating, with potential crippling adverse affects on quality of life. As the US population ages, the prevalence of incontinence is increasing.

Patients commonly present with questions about their incontinence with preconceived notions on their available treatment options based on Internet searches and advertisements from magazines and television. Thus, as gynecologists, we have a pivotal role in educating women on their conditions and management options in a comprehensive, informative, and reassuring manner. By educating patients on the success rates and limitations of available treatments, patients can make informed decisions and reinforce their sense of autonomy. In this article we present the evidence on current, new, and investigative products available for the treatment of both stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder, as well as fecal incontinence.

Case 1: Stress urinary incontinence
A 46-year-old woman (G2P2) presents with loss of urine with exercise, dancing, and sneezing that began after the birth of her last baby 5 years ago and is progressively becoming more frequent. She performs Kegel exercises occasionally and denies urinary urgency and/or urge incontinence. She reports a 20-lb weight gain in the past 3 years. Physical examination findings reveal normal pelvic examination with adequate pelvic organ support but weakened pelvic floor muscles during contraction. When you ask her to cough, you observe a small amount of urine loss from the urethral meatus. She has heard of “slings” before, but she is anxious about surgery.

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine with effort, physical exertion, sneezing, or coughing.¹ It is the most common type of incontinence in younger women, with risk factors including increasing age, parity, and obesity.^2,3 SUI treatment options, beginning from least to most invasive, include pelvic floor exercises, biofeedback and/or physical therapy, continence devices, off-label use of medications, urethral bulking agents, and surgical correction with slings. Midurethral tension-free slings are highly efficacious for the treatment of SUI. While a sling is a minimally invasive procedure, patients typically voice concerns regarding surgery and appropriately begin with conservative treatments.

A new FDA-approved OTC option for SUI
First-line conservative therapies offered to patients for SUI include pelvic floor muscle exercises and intravaginal continence devices. Disappointingly, such devices—including pessaries and the incontinence dish—have not been popular among patients for SUI. Authors of a randomized control trial evaluating incontinence pessaries versus behavioral therapy, including pelvic floor muscle training, found that, after 3 months, use of a pes‑ sary was not as effective as behavioral therapy in terms of patient satisfaction and improvement in bothersome urinary incontinence.⁴ In our experience, many patients wearing incontinence rings discontinue their use due to ineffectiveness or discomfort.

Patients now have an FDA-approved, over-the-counter option for SUI symptom management. The Poise Impressa is a disposable, nonabsorbent, flexible intravaginal device for patients with SUI (FIGURE 1). The device is comprised of a silicone core with a soft, nonwoven polypropylene fabric cover. It is inserted similar to a tampon, using an applicator, and provides nonobstructive support to the urethra to prevent stress urinary leakage. To find the proper fit, patients purchase the sizing kit, which includes 3 sizes. Patients are to insert size 1 first and monitor their comfort as well as improvement in leakage. Should size 1not sufficiently relieve leakage, the patient may try sizes 2 and 3 successively, with the goal of finding the most comfortable and effective insert. The insert is approved for up to 8 hours of wear in a 24-hour period, at which time the patient removes the device by pulling the string in a similar manner as removing a tampon.

Efficacy and quality of life data. Over 28 days, 85% of women with severe SUI confirmed on urodynamic testing achieved greater than 70% leakage reduction according to measured pad weights.⁵ Seventy percent of women reported 90% improvement in quality of life using validated questionnaires. In addition, 92% reported feeling dry with an improved perception of incontinence and greater confidence during strenuous activities.⁶ There were no serious adverse events, and the most common mild adverse events were discomfort, pain, and spotting.

As more patients become aware of the device through advertising and word of mouth, we expect patients to seek advice from their gynecologists on the safety and efficacy of the insert. In our experience, most patients report improvement in bothersome symptoms with the device and are overall satisfied. For patients who have discomfort with device placement, a water-based lubricant can be used. Patients using vaginal estrogen may apply the medication at night and wear the device during the day.

Office-based bladder control system in the pipeline
For SUI, options are limited for patients who would rather seek office-based procedures than invasive surgeries. Injections of urethral bulking agents can be performed in an office setting by injecting them transurethrally with a cystoscope slightly distal to the bladder neck. While bulking agents have a role in certain patients with SUI, especially those who are not interested in pursuing more invasive surgeries, only 43% have short-term (less than 6 months) cure and 75% report short-term improvement.⁷

A minimally invasive office-based procedure to treat SUI symptoms is under investigation in clinical trials currently. The Vesair Balloon bladder control system (Solace Therapeutics) is performed with cystoscopic guidance and is being tested at multiple sites throughout the United States (FIGURE 2).

The Vesair Balloon acts like a “shock absorber” to reduce momentary increases in bladder pressure due to external forces or stressors. The balloon is a small device, approximately the size of a quarter, and is implanted through the urethra via a specially designed applicator under cystoscopic guidance in the office setting. Pretreatment with pain medication usually is unnecessary. The VesairBalloon may be retained in situ for up to 12 months, at which time it is removed using a device-specific grasper under direct visualization with a cystoscope in the office.

Preliminary efficacy and safety data. In a single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 63% of women in the Vesair Balloon group had significant improvement in provocative pad weights and quality-of-life questionnaire scores at 3 months, compared with 31% in the control group.⁸ No serious adverse events were observed. Eleven of 63 patients (17%) withdrew from the study—most commonly for bladder irritation and dysuria.

We anxiously await the results of a second single-blinded randomized control trial currently being conducted.

Best surgical options for SUI
Today, the standard surgical procedure for SUI is a midurethral sling. Midurethral slings may be placed through 3 routes: retropubic; transobturator; and single-incision, otherwise known as “mini-slings.” Subjective cure rates of retropubic versus transobturator slings are similar, with lower rates of bladder perforation, major vascular/visceral injury, and operative blood loss in the transobturator group.⁹ However, rates of groin pain are higher in the trans‑ obturator group.

Single-incision slings were developed in an effort to avoid the morbidity and pain with passing traditional sling trocars through the obturator space and skin of the groin. In a randomized controlled trial, the Miniarc single- incision sling (Astora Women’s Health) was found to be noninferior to the Monarc transobturator sling (Astora) at 12 and 36 months.¹⁰ There were no statistically significant differences between subjective and objective cure rates on cough stress tests. Postoperative pain and groin pain were significantly less in patients with the Miniarc sling, compared with the Monarc sling.

It is our opinion that as more data become available, single-incision slings will find their foothold in a subset of patients with SUI.

Case 2: Overactive bladder: Failed medication therapy
A healthy 63-year-old woman presents with a 9-month history of loss of urine with strong urges, urinating 4 times per night, and a feeling of urgency when she needs to urinate. She denies pain with urination, difficulty emptying her bladder fully, and pain with a full bladder. She has restricted her fluid intake to 4 glasses of water per day and has stopped drinking fluids 4 hours before bedtime.

She described her symptoms to her intern‑ ist, who prescribed oxybutynin. She took the medication for 3 months but stopped after she developed severe constipation and dry mouth. She states the medication did not help her urinary symptoms. You discuss with her trials of other medications including topical anticholinergics and mirabegron. She is frustrated with her symptoms and asks if there are any other options besides medications.

Overactive bladder (OAB) is present in up to 16% of the US population, with the percentage estimated to increase by 20% within the next 2 years.^11,12 The drastic increase in prevalence, likely due to the aging population, may result in an increased counseling and management burden placed on general practitioners and gynecologists.

First-line management options for OAB are behavioral modifications and/or medications. Our patient in case 2 failed both first-line therapies. When a patient fails or is intolerant to an anticholinergic medication, we offer mirabegron, a beta-3 agonist (after excluding any contraindications to the medication). Beyond medications, the therapeutic options are rather limited.

Second-line OAB treatment options
In January 2013, the FDA expanded the approved use of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox, Allergan) for the treatment of OAB in those who are intolerant of or have failed treatment with anticholinergic medications. Using a cystoscope, 100 units of onabotulinum toxin A are injected into 20 sites within the bladder wall. Due to the risk of urinary retention in up to 6% of patients, it is recommended to administer onabotulinum toxin A to patients who are willing and capable of performing clean intermittent catheterization.¹³

Efficacy data. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors concluded onabotulinum toxin A to be effective in the treatment of idiopathic OAB with a statistically significant reduction compared with baseline in the number of incontinence episodes per day (-2.77 in the treatment group vs -1.01 in the placebo group) and the number of voids per day (-1.61 in the treatment group vs -0.87 in the placebo group).¹⁴ Patients who received onabotulinum toxin A experienced a higher rate of adverse effects, such as urinary tract infections, and were more likely to require clean intermittent catheterization due to incomplete bladder emptying.¹³ Patients can expect symptom improvement for approximately 6 months or longer.¹⁵ Based on the manufacturers’ recommendations, patients are not to be reinjected sooner than 12 weeks from prior onabotulinum toxin A injection.

In women with refractory OAB, available second-line treatments include neuromodulation by sacral nerve or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). The latter therapy is an office-based procedure that involves placement of a lead percutaneous to the medial aspect of the ankle near the tibial nerve. It is postulated that stimulation of the tibial nerve results in retrograde stimulation of the S3 sacral nerve plexus, resulting in OAB symptom relief in 54% to 70% of patients.¹⁶

Case 3: Fecal incontinence
A 57-year-old, otherwise healthy, multiparous woman presents with a 3-year history of fecal incontinence. She reports that it is embarrassing and distressing. She avoids certain social activities and is not currently sexually active due to the frequency of bowel leakage episodes.

In an effort to decrease her episodes of incontinence, she takes loperamide hydrochloride (Imodium) regularly with little improvement in the frequency of accidents. She has no history of gastrointestinal, rectal, or gynecologic surgery. She had 2 full-term vaginal deliveries that were uncomplicated. On review of systems, she also discloses occasional urinary incontinence.

Physical examination reveals normal vaginal anatomy with adequate pelvic organ support and no neurologic abnormalities. Rectal examination demonstrates normal tone and no evidence of rectal prolapse. Contractions of the pelvic floor muscles are weak. She is frustrated with her condition and seeks your guidance.

Fecal incontinence affects more than 20 million women in the United States, with only one-third of those with the condition disclosing their symptoms to their physician.¹⁷ Many etiologies for accidental bowel leakage exist, with some of the most common being advancing age and obstetric trauma. Up to one-third of women presenting for evaluation of urinary incontinence have fecal incontinence; therefore, one must be vigilant in screening for this potentially devastating condition.¹⁸

In case 3, the patient has tried medical therapies for fecal incontinence, including stool-bulking agents and motility regulators such as loperamide hydrochloride. Besides offering fiber supplements (or other stool-bulking agents) or physical therapy, nonsurgical options for this patient are limited.

Newly available: A vaginal insert for fecal incontinence
In 2015, the Eclipse System (Pelvalon) became the first FDA-approved vaginal insert for the treatment of fecal incontinence. The manufacturer recently was granted clearance for its second-generation device (FIGURE 3). The device consists of a silicone-coated stainless steel base with a posteriorly facing balloon and a pressure-regulated pump that allows the patient to control her bowel movements. After a patient is fitted with the device in the office setting, she is independently able to insert and remove it as well as deflate the balloon to allow for bowel movements and inflate the balloon to prevent accidental bowel leakage.

In a multicenter trial conducted by Richter and colleagues,¹⁹ 78% of women successfully fitted with the device had a 50% mean reduction of fecal incontinence episodes. Two-week mean incontinence episodes decreased from 11 to 2 after 1 month of continued use of the insert. In addition, there was significant improvement in quality-of-life questionnaire scores.

Of the 110 patients fitted with the device, 32 (29%) withdrew due to unsatisfactory device fit or were unable to remove or insert the device themselves. Common adverse effects included pelvic cramping and discomfort during device fitting. One month after insertion, pelvic pain and cramping continued in up to 10% of patients. No serious adverse events related to the device were observed during the 1-month trial.¹⁹

In the approximate 70% of women successfully fitted with the vaginal insert, the system was highly efficacious in improving subjective and objective outcomes with no unexpected serious adverse events. Currently the device is available at investigative sites across the United States, and the company plans for sales to begin later this year.

Surgical options for fecal incontinence
In patients for whom conservative and medical therapies have failed, surgical treatments may be offered. Surgical options vary from minimally invasive procedures to colostomy. One of the minimally invasive procedures available is the InterStim procedure, or sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). An electrode is inserted percutaneously through the S3 foramen and is connected to an implanted battery under the skin of the buttocks. Low-voltage stimulation is applied to the leads that lie adjacent to the S3 sacral nerve roots.

Patients with SNS experience fewer episodes of fecal incontinence, with over 80% maintaining a reduction in fecal incontinent episodes by greater than 50% up to 5 years after implantation.^20,21

The transobturator postanal sling system (TOPAS, Astora) is a new investigational surgical device. It is inserted in a minimally invasive procedure and is currently undergoing a prospective, multicenter clinical trial (FIGURE 4). It consists of a polypropylene mesh sling placed perianally, with the mesh arms exiting through the obturator foramen bilaterally. It is intended to increase posterior pelvic support at the level of the anorectal junction. Efficacy and safety of the product have yet to be determined.

We need to stay up to date on new treatment options
As the prevalence increases for urinary and fecal incontinence, ObGyns are challenged to remain knowledgeable about the condition, the prognosis, and the success of interventions. Currently, patients have a range of options to manage their urinary and fecal incontinence symptoms, with the number of products and clinical data increasing over time. With the advent of novel products and the widespread availability of information via the Internet, physicians must remain the established source on new innovative treatments and up-to-date clinical data in order to provide competent and comprehensive care.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Today, “normal” aging is no longer acceptable. From aesthetics to physical, mental, and sexual health, the maturing population seeks effective minimally invasive and practical methods to halt time and reverse its adverse effects. Nowhere is this more apparent than when dealing with urinary and fecal incontinence, conditions that can be not only embarrassing to patients but also debilitating, with potential crippling adverse affects on quality of life. As the US population ages, the prevalence of incontinence is increasing.

Patients commonly present with questions about their incontinence with preconceived notions on their available treatment options based on Internet searches and advertisements from magazines and television. Thus, as gynecologists, we have a pivotal role in educating women on their conditions and management options in a comprehensive, informative, and reassuring manner. By educating patients on the success rates and limitations of available treatments, patients can make informed decisions and reinforce their sense of autonomy. In this article we present the evidence on current, new, and investigative products available for the treatment of both stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder, as well as fecal incontinence.

Case 1: Stress urinary incontinence
A 46-year-old woman (G2P2) presents with loss of urine with exercise, dancing, and sneezing that began after the birth of her last baby 5 years ago and is progressively becoming more frequent. She performs Kegel exercises occasionally and denies urinary urgency and/or urge incontinence. She reports a 20-lb weight gain in the past 3 years. Physical examination findings reveal normal pelvic examination with adequate pelvic organ support but weakened pelvic floor muscles during contraction. When you ask her to cough, you observe a small amount of urine loss from the urethral meatus. She has heard of “slings” before, but she is anxious about surgery.

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the involuntary loss of urine with effort, physical exertion, sneezing, or coughing.¹ It is the most common type of incontinence in younger women, with risk factors including increasing age, parity, and obesity.^2,3 SUI treatment options, beginning from least to most invasive, include pelvic floor exercises, biofeedback and/or physical therapy, continence devices, off-label use of medications, urethral bulking agents, and surgical correction with slings. Midurethral tension-free slings are highly efficacious for the treatment of SUI. While a sling is a minimally invasive procedure, patients typically voice concerns regarding surgery and appropriately begin with conservative treatments.

A new FDA-approved OTC option for SUI
First-line conservative therapies offered to patients for SUI include pelvic floor muscle exercises and intravaginal continence devices. Disappointingly, such devices—including pessaries and the incontinence dish—have not been popular among patients for SUI. Authors of a randomized control trial evaluating incontinence pessaries versus behavioral therapy, including pelvic floor muscle training, found that, after 3 months, use of a pes‑ sary was not as effective as behavioral therapy in terms of patient satisfaction and improvement in bothersome urinary incontinence.⁴ In our experience, many patients wearing incontinence rings discontinue their use due to ineffectiveness or discomfort.