Ob.Gyn. News

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.¹

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively.² Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope.³ Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.¹

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity.⁴ Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.
 

How should physicians perform office hysteroscopy to minimize patient discomfort?

The classic paradigm has been to focus on paracervical blocks, anxiolytics, and a supportive environment (such as mood music). However, those are far more important when your hysteroscope is larger than the natural cervical lumen. If you can use small hysteroscopes (< 3 mm for the nulliparous cervix, < 4 mm for the parous cervix), most women will not require cervical dilation, which further enhances the patient experience.

Using a flexible hysteroscope for suspected pathology, making sure not to overdistend the uterus (particularly in high-risk patients such as those with tubal occlusion and cervical stenosis), and vaginoscopy can all minimize patient discomfort. We have published data showing that by using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope in a group of mostly nulliparous women, greater than 50% have no discomfort, and more than 90% will have mild to no discomfort.³

What operative hysteroscopy procedures can be performed safely in a physician’s office, and what equipment is required?

Though highly dependent on experience and resources, reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) arguably have the easiest transition to operative office hysteroscopy by utilizing the analgesia and procedure room that is standard for oocyte retrieval and simply adding hysteroscopic procedures. The accompanying table stratifies general hysteroscopic procedures by difficulty.

Dr. Parry and Dr. Trolice

If one can use propofol or a similar level of sedation (which is routinely utilized for oocyte aspiration), there are few hysteroscopies that cannot be accomplished in the office. However, the less sedation and analgesia, the more judicious one must be in patient selection. Moreover, there are trade-offs between visualization, comfort, and instrumentation.

The greater the uterine distention and diameter of the hysteroscope, the more patients experience pain. One-third of patients (especially nulliparous) will discontinue a procedure with a 5-mm hysteroscope because of discomfort.⁵ However, as one drops to 4.5 mm and smaller operative hysteroscopes, instruments often occupy the inflow channel, limiting distention and visualization, which also can affect completion rates and safety.
 

When is operative hysteroscopy best suited for the OR?

In addition to physician experience and clinical resources, the critical factors guiding our choices for selecting the OR rather than the office, include:

• Loss of landmarks. Though Dr. Parry now does most severe intrauterine adhesion cases in the office with ultrasound guidance, when neither ostia can be visualized there is meaningful risk for perforation. Preoperative estrogen, development of planes with the diagnostic hysteroscope prior, and preparing the patient for a possible multistage procedure are all important.
• Use of energy. There are many excellent hysteroscopic surgeons who use the resectoscope well in the office. However, with possible patient movement and potential perforation with energy leading to a bowel injury, there can be greater risk when using energy relative to other methods (such as forceps, scissors, and mechanical morcellation).
• Deeper fibroids. Fibroids displace rather than invade the myometrium, and one can sonographically visualize the myometrium reapproximate over a fibroid as it herniates more into the uterine cavity. Nevertheless, the closer a fibroid comes to the serosa, the more mindful one should be of risks and balances for hysteroscopic removal.

In a patient with a severely stenotic cervix or tortuous endocervical canal, what preprocedure methods do you find helpful, and do you utilize abdominal ultrasound guidance?

If using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope, we find 99.8%-99.9% of cervices can be successfully cannulated in the office, with rare exception, that is, following cryotherapy or chlamydia cervicitis. This is the equivalent of your dilator having a camera on the tip and fully articulating to adjust to the cervical path.

Transvaginal sonography prior to hysteroscopy where one maps the cervical lumen helps anticipate problems (along with being familiar with the patient’s history). For the rare dilation under anesthesia, concurrent sonography with a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope and intermittent dilator use has been sufficient for our exceptions without the need for lacrimal dilators, vasopressin, misoprostol, and other adjuncts. Of note, we use a 1080p flexible endoscope, as lower resolution would make this more challenging.
 

In patients with recurrent implantation failure following IVF, is hysteroscopy superior to 3D saline infusion sonogram?

At an American Society of Reproductive Medicine 2021 session, Ilan Tur-Kaspa, MD, and Dr. Parry debated the topic of 2D ultrasound combined with hysteroscopy vs. 3D saline infusion sonography. Core areas of agreement were that expert hands for any approach are better than nonexpert, and high-resolution technology is better than lower resolution. There was also agreement that extrauterine and myometrial disease, such as intramural fibroids and adenomyosis, are contributory factors.

So, sonography will always have a role. However, existing and forthcoming data show hysteroscopy to improve live birth rates for patients with recurrent implantation failure after IVF. Dr. Parry finds diagnostic hysteroscopy easier for identifying endometritis, sessile and cornual polyps, retained products of conception (which are often isoechogenic with the endometrium) and lateral adhesions.

The reality is that there is variability among physicians and midlevel providers in both sonographic and diagnostic hysteroscopic skill. If one wants to verify findings with another team member, acknowledging that there can be nuances to identifying these pathologies by sonography, it is easier to share and discuss findings through hysteroscopic video than sonographic records.
 

When is endometrial biopsy indicated during office hysteroscopy?

The patients of an REI are very unlikely to have endometrial cancer (or even hyperplasia) outside of polyps (or arguably hypervascular areas of overgrowth), so the focus is on resecting visualized pathology relative to random biopsy.

However, the threshold for biopsy should be adjusted to the patient population, as well as to individual findings and risk. RVUs are greatly increased (11.1 > 41.57) with biopsy, helping sustainability. Additionally, if one places the hysteroscope on endometrium and applies suction through the inflow channel, one can obtain a sample with small-caliber diagnostic hysteroscopes and without having to use forceps.
 

What is your threshold for fluid deficit in hysteroscopy?

We follow AAGL guidelines, which for operative hysteroscopy are 2,500 mL of isotonic fluids or 1,000 mL of hypotonic fluids in low-risk patients. This should be further reduced to 500 mL of isotonic fluids in the elderly and even 300 mL in those with cardiovascular compromise.⁶

For patients who request sedation for office hysteroscopy, which option do you recommend – paracervical block alone, nitrous oxide, or the combination?

For diagnostic, greater than 95% of our patients do not require even over-the-counter analgesic medications. For operative, we consider all permissible resources that allow for a safe combination that is appropriate to the pathology and clinical setting, such as paracervical blocks, nitrous oxide, NSAIDs such as ketorolac, anxiolytics, and more.

The goal is to optimize the patient experience. However, the top three criteria that influence successful operative office hysteroscopy for a conscious patient are a parous cervix, judicious patient selection, and pre- and intraoperative verbal analgesia. Informed consent and engagement improve the experience of both the patient and physician.

Dr. Parry is the founder of Positive Steps Fertility in Madison, Miss. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

References

1. Parry JP et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.010.

2. Wadhwa L et al. 2017 Apr-Jun. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_123_16.

3. Parry JP et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1159.

4. Penzias A et al. Fertil Steril. 2021 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.038.

5. Campo R et al. Hum Reprod. 2005 Jan;20(1):258-63. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh559.

6. AAGL AAGL practice report: Practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.002.

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.¹

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively.² Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope.³ Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.¹

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity.⁴ Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.
 

How should physicians perform office hysteroscopy to minimize patient discomfort?

The classic paradigm has been to focus on paracervical blocks, anxiolytics, and a supportive environment (such as mood music). However, those are far more important when your hysteroscope is larger than the natural cervical lumen. If you can use small hysteroscopes (< 3 mm for the nulliparous cervix, < 4 mm for the parous cervix), most women will not require cervical dilation, which further enhances the patient experience.

Using a flexible hysteroscope for suspected pathology, making sure not to overdistend the uterus (particularly in high-risk patients such as those with tubal occlusion and cervical stenosis), and vaginoscopy can all minimize patient discomfort. We have published data showing that by using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope in a group of mostly nulliparous women, greater than 50% have no discomfort, and more than 90% will have mild to no discomfort.³

What operative hysteroscopy procedures can be performed safely in a physician’s office, and what equipment is required?

Though highly dependent on experience and resources, reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) arguably have the easiest transition to operative office hysteroscopy by utilizing the analgesia and procedure room that is standard for oocyte retrieval and simply adding hysteroscopic procedures. The accompanying table stratifies general hysteroscopic procedures by difficulty.

Dr. Parry and Dr. Trolice

If one can use propofol or a similar level of sedation (which is routinely utilized for oocyte aspiration), there are few hysteroscopies that cannot be accomplished in the office. However, the less sedation and analgesia, the more judicious one must be in patient selection. Moreover, there are trade-offs between visualization, comfort, and instrumentation.

The greater the uterine distention and diameter of the hysteroscope, the more patients experience pain. One-third of patients (especially nulliparous) will discontinue a procedure with a 5-mm hysteroscope because of discomfort.⁵ However, as one drops to 4.5 mm and smaller operative hysteroscopes, instruments often occupy the inflow channel, limiting distention and visualization, which also can affect completion rates and safety.
 

When is operative hysteroscopy best suited for the OR?

In addition to physician experience and clinical resources, the critical factors guiding our choices for selecting the OR rather than the office, include:

• Loss of landmarks. Though Dr. Parry now does most severe intrauterine adhesion cases in the office with ultrasound guidance, when neither ostia can be visualized there is meaningful risk for perforation. Preoperative estrogen, development of planes with the diagnostic hysteroscope prior, and preparing the patient for a possible multistage procedure are all important.
• Use of energy. There are many excellent hysteroscopic surgeons who use the resectoscope well in the office. However, with possible patient movement and potential perforation with energy leading to a bowel injury, there can be greater risk when using energy relative to other methods (such as forceps, scissors, and mechanical morcellation).
• Deeper fibroids. Fibroids displace rather than invade the myometrium, and one can sonographically visualize the myometrium reapproximate over a fibroid as it herniates more into the uterine cavity. Nevertheless, the closer a fibroid comes to the serosa, the more mindful one should be of risks and balances for hysteroscopic removal.

In a patient with a severely stenotic cervix or tortuous endocervical canal, what preprocedure methods do you find helpful, and do you utilize abdominal ultrasound guidance?

If using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope, we find 99.8%-99.9% of cervices can be successfully cannulated in the office, with rare exception, that is, following cryotherapy or chlamydia cervicitis. This is the equivalent of your dilator having a camera on the tip and fully articulating to adjust to the cervical path.

Transvaginal sonography prior to hysteroscopy where one maps the cervical lumen helps anticipate problems (along with being familiar with the patient’s history). For the rare dilation under anesthesia, concurrent sonography with a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope and intermittent dilator use has been sufficient for our exceptions without the need for lacrimal dilators, vasopressin, misoprostol, and other adjuncts. Of note, we use a 1080p flexible endoscope, as lower resolution would make this more challenging.
 

In patients with recurrent implantation failure following IVF, is hysteroscopy superior to 3D saline infusion sonogram?

At an American Society of Reproductive Medicine 2021 session, Ilan Tur-Kaspa, MD, and Dr. Parry debated the topic of 2D ultrasound combined with hysteroscopy vs. 3D saline infusion sonography. Core areas of agreement were that expert hands for any approach are better than nonexpert, and high-resolution technology is better than lower resolution. There was also agreement that extrauterine and myometrial disease, such as intramural fibroids and adenomyosis, are contributory factors.

So, sonography will always have a role. However, existing and forthcoming data show hysteroscopy to improve live birth rates for patients with recurrent implantation failure after IVF. Dr. Parry finds diagnostic hysteroscopy easier for identifying endometritis, sessile and cornual polyps, retained products of conception (which are often isoechogenic with the endometrium) and lateral adhesions.

The reality is that there is variability among physicians and midlevel providers in both sonographic and diagnostic hysteroscopic skill. If one wants to verify findings with another team member, acknowledging that there can be nuances to identifying these pathologies by sonography, it is easier to share and discuss findings through hysteroscopic video than sonographic records.
 

When is endometrial biopsy indicated during office hysteroscopy?

The patients of an REI are very unlikely to have endometrial cancer (or even hyperplasia) outside of polyps (or arguably hypervascular areas of overgrowth), so the focus is on resecting visualized pathology relative to random biopsy.

However, the threshold for biopsy should be adjusted to the patient population, as well as to individual findings and risk. RVUs are greatly increased (11.1 > 41.57) with biopsy, helping sustainability. Additionally, if one places the hysteroscope on endometrium and applies suction through the inflow channel, one can obtain a sample with small-caliber diagnostic hysteroscopes and without having to use forceps.
 

What is your threshold for fluid deficit in hysteroscopy?

We follow AAGL guidelines, which for operative hysteroscopy are 2,500 mL of isotonic fluids or 1,000 mL of hypotonic fluids in low-risk patients. This should be further reduced to 500 mL of isotonic fluids in the elderly and even 300 mL in those with cardiovascular compromise.⁶

For patients who request sedation for office hysteroscopy, which option do you recommend – paracervical block alone, nitrous oxide, or the combination?

For diagnostic, greater than 95% of our patients do not require even over-the-counter analgesic medications. For operative, we consider all permissible resources that allow for a safe combination that is appropriate to the pathology and clinical setting, such as paracervical blocks, nitrous oxide, NSAIDs such as ketorolac, anxiolytics, and more.

The goal is to optimize the patient experience. However, the top three criteria that influence successful operative office hysteroscopy for a conscious patient are a parous cervix, judicious patient selection, and pre- and intraoperative verbal analgesia. Informed consent and engagement improve the experience of both the patient and physician.

Dr. Parry is the founder of Positive Steps Fertility in Madison, Miss. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

References

1. Parry JP et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.010.

2. Wadhwa L et al. 2017 Apr-Jun. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_123_16.

3. Parry JP et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1159.

4. Penzias A et al. Fertil Steril. 2021 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.038.

5. Campo R et al. Hum Reprod. 2005 Jan;20(1):258-63. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh559.

6. AAGL AAGL practice report: Practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.002.

What role does diagnostic office hysteroscopy play in an infertility evaluation?

Performed properly, office hysteroscopy can transform your practice by accurately, gently, and safely assessing the uterine cavity as well as assessing tubal patency.¹

More specifically, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for assessing the uterine cavity. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in evaluating uterine cavity abnormalities were 44.83%; 86.67%; 56.52%; and 80.25%, respectively.² Given the poor sensitivity of HSG, a diagnosis of endometrial polyps and/or chronic endometritis is more likely to be missed.

Our crossover trial comparing HSG to office hysteroscopy for tubal patency showed that women were 110 times more likely to have the maximum level of pain with HSG than diagnostic hysteroscopy when using a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope.³ Further, infection rates and vasovagal events were far lower with hysteroscopy.¹

Finally, compared with HSG, we showed 98%-100% sensitivity and 84% specificity for tubal occlusion with hysteroscopy by air-infused saline. Conversely, HSG typically is associated with 76%-96% sensitivity and 67%-100% specificity.⁴ Additionally, we can often perform diagnostic hysteroscopies for approximately $35 per procedure for total fixed and disposable equipment costs.
 

How should physicians perform office hysteroscopy to minimize patient discomfort?

The classic paradigm has been to focus on paracervical blocks, anxiolytics, and a supportive environment (such as mood music). However, those are far more important when your hysteroscope is larger than the natural cervical lumen. If you can use small hysteroscopes (< 3 mm for the nulliparous cervix, < 4 mm for the parous cervix), most women will not require cervical dilation, which further enhances the patient experience.

Using a flexible hysteroscope for suspected pathology, making sure not to overdistend the uterus (particularly in high-risk patients such as those with tubal occlusion and cervical stenosis), and vaginoscopy can all minimize patient discomfort. We have published data showing that by using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope in a group of mostly nulliparous women, greater than 50% have no discomfort, and more than 90% will have mild to no discomfort.³

What operative hysteroscopy procedures can be performed safely in a physician’s office, and what equipment is required?

Though highly dependent on experience and resources, reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) arguably have the easiest transition to operative office hysteroscopy by utilizing the analgesia and procedure room that is standard for oocyte retrieval and simply adding hysteroscopic procedures. The accompanying table stratifies general hysteroscopic procedures by difficulty.

Dr. Parry and Dr. Trolice

If one can use propofol or a similar level of sedation (which is routinely utilized for oocyte aspiration), there are few hysteroscopies that cannot be accomplished in the office. However, the less sedation and analgesia, the more judicious one must be in patient selection. Moreover, there are trade-offs between visualization, comfort, and instrumentation.

The greater the uterine distention and diameter of the hysteroscope, the more patients experience pain. One-third of patients (especially nulliparous) will discontinue a procedure with a 5-mm hysteroscope because of discomfort.⁵ However, as one drops to 4.5 mm and smaller operative hysteroscopes, instruments often occupy the inflow channel, limiting distention and visualization, which also can affect completion rates and safety.
 

When is operative hysteroscopy best suited for the OR?

In addition to physician experience and clinical resources, the critical factors guiding our choices for selecting the OR rather than the office, include:

• Loss of landmarks. Though Dr. Parry now does most severe intrauterine adhesion cases in the office with ultrasound guidance, when neither ostia can be visualized there is meaningful risk for perforation. Preoperative estrogen, development of planes with the diagnostic hysteroscope prior, and preparing the patient for a possible multistage procedure are all important.
• Use of energy. There are many excellent hysteroscopic surgeons who use the resectoscope well in the office. However, with possible patient movement and potential perforation with energy leading to a bowel injury, there can be greater risk when using energy relative to other methods (such as forceps, scissors, and mechanical morcellation).
• Deeper fibroids. Fibroids displace rather than invade the myometrium, and one can sonographically visualize the myometrium reapproximate over a fibroid as it herniates more into the uterine cavity. Nevertheless, the closer a fibroid comes to the serosa, the more mindful one should be of risks and balances for hysteroscopic removal.

In a patient with a severely stenotic cervix or tortuous endocervical canal, what preprocedure methods do you find helpful, and do you utilize abdominal ultrasound guidance?

If using a 2.8-mm flexible diagnostic hysteroscope, we find 99.8%-99.9% of cervices can be successfully cannulated in the office, with rare exception, that is, following cryotherapy or chlamydia cervicitis. This is the equivalent of your dilator having a camera on the tip and fully articulating to adjust to the cervical path.

Transvaginal sonography prior to hysteroscopy where one maps the cervical lumen helps anticipate problems (along with being familiar with the patient’s history). For the rare dilation under anesthesia, concurrent sonography with a 2.8-mm flexible hysteroscope and intermittent dilator use has been sufficient for our exceptions without the need for lacrimal dilators, vasopressin, misoprostol, and other adjuncts. Of note, we use a 1080p flexible endoscope, as lower resolution would make this more challenging.
 

In patients with recurrent implantation failure following IVF, is hysteroscopy superior to 3D saline infusion sonogram?

At an American Society of Reproductive Medicine 2021 session, Ilan Tur-Kaspa, MD, and Dr. Parry debated the topic of 2D ultrasound combined with hysteroscopy vs. 3D saline infusion sonography. Core areas of agreement were that expert hands for any approach are better than nonexpert, and high-resolution technology is better than lower resolution. There was also agreement that extrauterine and myometrial disease, such as intramural fibroids and adenomyosis, are contributory factors.

So, sonography will always have a role. However, existing and forthcoming data show hysteroscopy to improve live birth rates for patients with recurrent implantation failure after IVF. Dr. Parry finds diagnostic hysteroscopy easier for identifying endometritis, sessile and cornual polyps, retained products of conception (which are often isoechogenic with the endometrium) and lateral adhesions.

The reality is that there is variability among physicians and midlevel providers in both sonographic and diagnostic hysteroscopic skill. If one wants to verify findings with another team member, acknowledging that there can be nuances to identifying these pathologies by sonography, it is easier to share and discuss findings through hysteroscopic video than sonographic records.
 

When is endometrial biopsy indicated during office hysteroscopy?

The patients of an REI are very unlikely to have endometrial cancer (or even hyperplasia) outside of polyps (or arguably hypervascular areas of overgrowth), so the focus is on resecting visualized pathology relative to random biopsy.

However, the threshold for biopsy should be adjusted to the patient population, as well as to individual findings and risk. RVUs are greatly increased (11.1 > 41.57) with biopsy, helping sustainability. Additionally, if one places the hysteroscope on endometrium and applies suction through the inflow channel, one can obtain a sample with small-caliber diagnostic hysteroscopes and without having to use forceps.
 

What is your threshold for fluid deficit in hysteroscopy?

We follow AAGL guidelines, which for operative hysteroscopy are 2,500 mL of isotonic fluids or 1,000 mL of hypotonic fluids in low-risk patients. This should be further reduced to 500 mL of isotonic fluids in the elderly and even 300 mL in those with cardiovascular compromise.⁶

For patients who request sedation for office hysteroscopy, which option do you recommend – paracervical block alone, nitrous oxide, or the combination?

For diagnostic, greater than 95% of our patients do not require even over-the-counter analgesic medications. For operative, we consider all permissible resources that allow for a safe combination that is appropriate to the pathology and clinical setting, such as paracervical blocks, nitrous oxide, NSAIDs such as ketorolac, anxiolytics, and more.

The goal is to optimize the patient experience. However, the top three criteria that influence successful operative office hysteroscopy for a conscious patient are a parous cervix, judicious patient selection, and pre- and intraoperative verbal analgesia. Informed consent and engagement improve the experience of both the patient and physician.

Dr. Parry is the founder of Positive Steps Fertility in Madison, Miss. Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

References

1. Parry JP et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.010.

2. Wadhwa L et al. 2017 Apr-Jun. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_123_16.

3. Parry JP et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1159.

4. Penzias A et al. Fertil Steril. 2021 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.038.

5. Campo R et al. Hum Reprod. 2005 Jan;20(1):258-63. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh559.

6. AAGL AAGL practice report: Practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.002.

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, I.D.Hodkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.