Ob.Gyn. News

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – A youth-led discussion and education program, facilitated by experts during monthly meetings, significantly increased teen participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy around sexual and reproductive health, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

While the small pilot study focused primarily on assessing feasibility and effectiveness, the results suggest potential for scaling the program up to reach a larger audience and assessing the knowledge disseminated from direct youth participants.

Ms. Sao

“The good thing about this subject is that not a lot of it has to be context-specific,” Saumya Sao, a clinical researcher in gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the study’s lead author, said in an interview. “A lot of it is just baseline information that everybody needs and doesn’t get.”

Jaime Friedman, MD, a pediatrician and director of marketing at Children’s Primary Care Medical Group in San Diego, was not involved in the study but was impressed with the program’s objectives and results so far.

Dr. Friedman

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

Introduction: Reassurance through pregnancy loss and workups

Pregnancy loss is not an uncommon complication but it can be associated with significant stress among parents and loved ones when it occurs. Especially when recurrent, it also becomes a medical dilemma for physicians and nurses because the cause is not always obvious immediately, and even with exploration, the cause may not always be found.

First and foremost, it is important that physicians provide counseling and reassurance to families experiencing loss, and that they encourage a level of patience while the investigation for loss is done. Investigations tend not to be linear. One must look at a number of diagnostic areas including genetics, anatomy, immunology, and infections.

Even with an extensive workup, what often is found are potential associations rather than precise causes. For instance, one may find that certain antibodies or certain conditions are present, or that certain anatomic structures are abnormal. While such findings are not necessarily causative, there are therapeutic interventions that we can offer to address many of the conditions (e.g., surgical correction of the septate uterus, and low-dose aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome).

Less than 1% of couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss (traditionally defined as three or more losses), so parents who experience one loss should be given reassurance that their loss was likely a sporadic miscarriage and that chances of recurrence will be low. Even as workups proceed, reassurance is important.

For this month’s Master Class in Obstetrics we’ve invited Wendy L. Kinzler, MD, and Anthony Vintzileos, MD, both of whom have expertise in the area of recurrent pregnancy loss, to review the potential causes and the management approach. They focus on the first trimester, when genetic causes predominate, and the early second trimester, when undetected uterine factors can be at play. They explain that the gestational age at which recurrent losses occur is an important factor in decoding etiology and management.

Dr. Kinzler is associate dean, graduate medical education, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, N.Y., and Dr. Vintzileos is chief patient safety officer for obstetrics, Northwell Health–Western Region, and professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology in the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Kinzler and Dr. Vintzileos reported no relevant disclosures.
 

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Investigating the etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss

Pregnancy loss is defined as a loss occurring at < 20 weeks’ gestation. Any pregnancy loss is a devastating experience and couples deserve a thoughtful approach to identifying possible causes and/or predisposing factors.

Consideration of the timing of the pregnancy loss can provide a useful guide to this evaluation, as etiologies vary depending on when in gestation losses occur. In this Master Class, we will address the evaluation of pregnancy loss at < 20 weeks’ gestation, with particular attention to first trimester and early second trimester causes. Literature on the role of the cervix and intra-amniotic infection in midtrimester loss is extensive and will not be covered here.

Although early first trimester miscarriage is common, occurring in approximately 15% of clinically recognized pregnancies, only 2%-3% of couples experience two or more miscarriages and 0.5%-1% experience three or more.

When to begin a diagnostic workup should be part of a shared decision-making process, taking into consideration future family planning, parity, number of previous losses, and notably, the gestational age at which loss(es) occurred. Recurrence rates for first trimester miscarriage are similar after two versus three consecutive losses and either situation usually prompts an evaluation, whereas any second-trimester loss should be evaluated.

Increasingly, we are appreciating the value of a more targeted, gestational age–driven approach to the evaluation of pregnancy loss in an attempt to provide grieving parents with useful information without subjecting them to a wide array of expensive and unnecessary tests.
 

Genetic causes

The earlier the pregnancy loss, the more likely it is the result of abnormal fetal genetics. Genetic factors should be considered as the most likely cause for first trimester pregnancy losses (especially those occurring at < 10 weeks’ gestation), the most frequent being autosomal trisomies or monosomy X. The vast majority of trisomy conceptuses are sporadic in nature and are related to the natural aging process of the ovary (increasing the rate of meiotic nondisjunction).

NYU Long Island School of Medicine

If fetal aneuploidy is identified in a pregnancy loss, couples can be counseled about the definitive cause of the loss and can be counseled about recurrence based on age-related risks and/or tests of ovarian reserve. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is only rarely associated with a parental translocation (< 5%). Testing parental karyotypes should be reserved for cases in which the fetal karyotypes are unknown or in which an unbalanced translocation was identified in the fetus.

When a first trimester pregnancy loss is diagnosed, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) with microarray testing is the most reliable and comprehensive method for evaluating potential genetic causes. It provides valuable information even when cells are not viable and reduces the risk of maternal cell contamination – two significant limitations to standard karyotype analysis performed on tissue passed spontaneously or at the time of D&C. Studies of products of conception (POC) testing with microarray have documented the detection of abnormalities in an additional 10%-15% of cases compared with traditional karyotype analysis.

Hofstra/Northwell

When CVS is not feasible, testing maternal serum for cell-free DNA is a reasonable alternative. In a prospective cohort study of 50 maternal blood samples taken after fetal demise, 76% of samples yielded cell-free DNA results, meaning fetal fractions were within the detectable range. The higher the gestational age at the time of loss, the higher the chance of obtaining a result: Findings in the study were possible in 88% of samples when the gestational age was 8 weeks or greater, and in 53% of cases involving a lower gestational age. The time from demise to blood draw did not affect the likelihood of obtaining a result (Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;125[6]:1321-29).

When neither CVS nor cell-free DNA analysis is feasible, analysis of either spontaneously passed tissue or tissue obtained at the time of a D&C may still be worthwhile. Maternal cell contamination, of course, is the main downside.

A paper published in 2020 documented the value of refocusing the initial workup. Researchers reported that 57% of 1,400 cases of recurrent pregnancy loss went unexplained using the 2012 ASRM guidelines, which included parental karyotyping but not POC cytogenetic analysis. When parental karyotypes were omitted from the initial workup and POC analysis with 24-chromosome microarray was added, at least one potential explanation for loss could be identified in 92% of cases. Only 8% were left “unexplained” (Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32[5]:371-9).
 

When genetics are ruled out

Issues that are top of mind when we lack genetic information or when genetic causes are ruled out include maternal metabolic disorders (uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled thyroid disease), environmental exposures (smoking), uterine abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Thorough evaluation of the uterine cavity after recurrent first trimester miscarriage – or after any second trimester loss – is too often a missing element of investigation. It is a vital component of the evaluation, and information about uterine structure is easily obtained.

A saline infusion sonogram (SIS) allows us to look at the external contour of the uterus, assess the myometrium for muscular abnormalities, visualize the uterine lining, and assess uterine orientation. Performed in the nonpregnant state, and ideally coupled with 3D technology, this relatively simple test can identify congenital uterine anomalies, intracavitary abnormalities (such as fibroids, polyps, or synechiae) which can surgically be removed prior to another pregnancy, a retroverted uterus that may be predisposed to incarceration during pregnancy, and other potentially impactful conditions, such as adenomyosis.
 

Structural anomalies

Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with first trimester miscarriage, second trimester pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. A uterine septum is of particular concern for early miscarriage, as the early embryo can implant on the relatively avascular septum.

Other congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphys, unicornuate) can be associated with concomitant cervical structural abnormalities leading to cervical insufficiency and/or result in pathologic uterine stretch of a space-limited cavity, leading to midtrimester loss or preterm birth. The diagnosis of these anomalies is an important part of the evaluation of pregnancy loss, as it can guide monitoring in future pregnancies, or can be surgically corrected, as in the case of a uterine septum, significantly improving pregnancy outcomes.

A short cervix can result either congenitally or from injury or trauma and may also be associated with cervical insufficiency and miscarriage. It can be evaluated and monitored by ultrasound and, in some cases, treated by surgical cerclage. Pregnancy losses due to cervical insufficiency usually occur after 16 weeks of gestation and frequently are associated with intra-amniotic infections.
 

Incarcerated uterus and adenomyosis

Other uterine factors that can contribute to pregnancy loss and that are largely underdiagnosed or undiagnosed are an incarcerated retroverted uterus and adenomyosis.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

Most of the time, a retroverted uterus naturally assumes an anteverted position by the late first trimester or early second trimester, allowing for continued growth of the uterus and developing fetus. In approximately 10% of cases, however, the retroverted uterus becomes “stuck” or incarcerated in the posterior pelvis. This is more likely if there are large uterine fibroids or in the presence of pelvic adhesions due to endometriosis or previous pelvic surgery.

When this occurs, the fundus is wedged on the sacral promontory (may cause pelvic discomfort and constipation) and the cervix is markedly displaced anteriorly under the pubic symphysis (causing bladder outlet obstruction and urinary retention).

It is critical that ob.gyns. and emergency medicine providers are aware of this condition, which typically presents between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation. The most frequent complaint is lower abdominal discomfort due to distended bladder and inability to void, which usually leads to bladder catheterization with drainage of large amounts of urine. An incarcerated uterus can predispose to pregnancy loss during this time (few other conditions cause loss during this time window), presumably due to impaired uterine artery blood flow.

Once the diagnosis is made, uterine incarceration may be corrected by elevating the gravid uterus out of the pelvis either manually, or by using a transvaginal ultrasound probe. (The latter minimally invasive approach was described in March at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s annual conference by Martin Chavez, MD, and coinvestigators. More invasive approaches are rarely required but include CO₂ intraperitoneal insufflation, as used prior to laparoscopy, or laparotomy.

The later in gestation the condition is allowed to persist, the less likely correction will be possible due to the enlarging fundus. Correction between 14 and 16 weeks, or earlier if symptoms develop, is recommended.

Martin R. Chavez, MD. NYU Long Island School of Medicine

A word about antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome can cause a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including first and second trimester pregnancy loss, fetal demise, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and maternal thromboembolism. The classical presentation of miscarriage due to untreated antiphospholipid antibody syndrome is early severe fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and IUFD in the second trimester.

The diagnosis requires at least one clinical criterion and one laboratory criterion. The mere presence of low level antibodies does not make the diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, and care should be taken to consider both the clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria to make an accurate diagnosis.

When present, close maternal and fetal surveillance and a combination of low-dose aspirin and heparin are mainstays of treatment. The majority of studies suggest that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin have comparable clinical efficacy. However, if a recurrent loss is experienced despite treatment with LMWH, the use of unfractionated heparin in a subsequent pregnancy should be considered.

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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

BALTIMORE – Water-based personal vaginal lubricants can not only relieve vaginal dryness but also can improve dyspareunia and increase other measures of sexual satisfaction for women, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a secondary analysis also presented at the meeting, the lubricants were found not to alter the vaginal microbiome.

Using these types of lubricants during vaginal intercourse at least once a week over a 4-week period resulted in a statistically significant increase of over four points in the 36-point Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a self-reported measure of sexual functioning, for participants, said Michael Krychman, MD, executive director of the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, Newport Beach, the senior author of the study. Statistically significant improvements also were observed in individual areas such as sexual desire and arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction. Results of the study have been published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine

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

BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.

The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.

“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
 

Improving health by tackling legal barriers

Health-harming legal needs – social determinants of health that have a legal remedy – are drivers of poor health outcomes, particularly for Black women and children, Ms. Richardson said.

The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.

Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.

From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.

The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.

Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.

Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
 

COVID ... or morning sickness?

In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.

With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.

Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.

“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”

Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.

The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.

“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
 

Improving health by tackling legal barriers

Health-harming legal needs – social determinants of health that have a legal remedy – are drivers of poor health outcomes, particularly for Black women and children, Ms. Richardson said.

The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.

Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.

From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.

The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.

Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.

Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
 

COVID ... or morning sickness?

In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.

With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.

Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.

“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”

Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BALTIMORE – A novel partnership between a legal services program and a maternal health clinic is helping pregnant patients with issues such as housing or employment discrimination.

The Perinatal Legal Assistance and Well-being (P-LAW) program at Georgetown University, Washington, launched 2 years ago as a collaboration between GU’s Health Justice Alliance clinic and the Women’s and Infants Services division of nearby MedStar Washington Hospital Center, integrating attorneys into the health care team to offer no-cost legal aid for its diverse, urban population during the perinatal period. Since then, the effort has assisted more than 120 women.

“Our goal was to see how integrating a lawyer can help address some of those issues that, unfortunately, providers are not able to assist with because they go beyond the hospital or clinic walls,” said Roxana Richardson, JD, the project director and managing attorney for P-LAW, during a poster presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Our initial findings showed that there are issues that patients were facing that needed an intervention from an attorney. We trained the providers and social workers to identify these issues so that we could intervene.”
 

Improving health by tackling legal barriers

Health-harming legal needs – social determinants of health that have a legal remedy – are drivers of poor health outcomes, particularly for Black women and children, Ms. Richardson said.

The program is one of few medical-legal partnerships specifically focused on the perinatal population. P-LAW is one component of a larger initiative at MedStar Health called DC Safe Babies Safe Moms. The initiative includes integrated mental health programming, treatment of health conditions that complicate pregnancy, assessments of social determinants of health, expanded support for lactation and nutrition, access to home visiting referrals, and extended postpartum follow-up. The work is supported through the A. James & Alice B. Clark Foundation.

Patients are evaluated for health-harming legal needs as part of a comprehensive social and behavioral health screening at their initial prenatal visit, 28-week appointment, and postpartum visit. Those who screen positive are contacted by a referral specialist on the health care team who confirms the patient has an active legal need and would like to be connected to the P-LAW team. The team then reaches out to conduct a legal intake and determine the appropriate course of action.

From March 2021 through February of this year, Ms. Richardson and others with the program have provided legal representation to 123 patients on 186 legal issues in areas such as public benefits, employment, and housing and family concerns. Services range from advising patients on steps they can take on their own (like reporting a housing condition issue to the Department of Buildings), to sending letters on patients’ behalf, to appearing in court. Most patients served were in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy. The majority were Black or African American, aged 20-34 years, and had incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level.

The most common legal issues were in the areas of public benefits (SNAP/food stamps, cash assistance), employment (parental leave, discrimination), housing (conditions, eviction), and family law (child support, domestic violence). Among the 186 issues, work has been completed on 106 concerns and 33 still have a case open; for 47, the client withdrew or ceased contact, Ms. Richardson reported.

Most times when obstetricians hear concerns like these, they wonder what to do, said Tamika Auguste, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at MedStar Health. Having the P-LAW program as a resource is a huge help, she said. If patients express concerns, or if obstetricians uncover concerns during office visits, doctors can enter a referral directly in the electronic medical record.

Patients are “so relieved,” Dr. Auguste said in an interview, because they often wonder if their doctor can help. “Your doctor is only going to be able to help to a certain point. But to know they’re pregnant and they have this resource, and they’re going to get legal help, has been game-changing for so many patients.”
 

COVID ... or morning sickness?

In one rewarding case, Ms. Richardson said, a single mother of one child who was pregnant and experiencing hyperemesis explained that her employer would forbid her from working if she had any symptoms similar to COVID-19. The employer mistook her vomiting, nausea, and exhaustion as COVID symptoms and docked her pay. That started a cascade in which earning less meant she was facing eviction and car repossession – and, eventually, overdraft fees and withdrawals from her bank. She was so despondent she was thinking about self-harm, Ms. Richardson said.

With the aid of the P-LAW program, the woman had short-term disability approved within 72 hours, was referred to the hospital for inpatient mental health treatment, and received the care she needed. She ultimately delivered a healthy baby girl and found a new job.

Tiffany Moore Simas, MD, MPH, MEd, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts and UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, said she encounters similar concerns among her patients, with the vast majority having one or more issues with social determinants of health.

“I think it’s incredible, as we’re trying to address equity in perinatal health and maternal mortality and morbidity, to have a more holistic view of what health means, and all of the social determinants of health, and actually helping our patients address that in real time at their visits and connecting them,” said Dr. Simas, who also is professor of ob/gyn, pediatrics, psychiatry, and population and quantitative health sciences at UMass. “It has really opened my mind to the possibilities of things we need to explore and do differently.”

Ms. Richardson, Dr. Auguste, and Dr. Simas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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