Obstetrics and gynecology最新文献

Enthusiasm for the use of hormones to ameliorate symptoms of perimenopause and menopause has waxed and waned over the years. Both treatment for symptoms and training of women's health care practitioners in the management of menopause have sharply declined since publication of the Women's Health Initiative initial results in 2002. Findings from that trial, which treated a population of older, asymptomatic patients, have been extrapolated over the past 21 years to all estrogen products, all menopausal women, and all delivery mechanisms. Our patients deserve a more nuanced, individualized approach. Conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate are no longer the predominant medications or medications of choice available for management of menopausal symptoms. All hormones are not equivalent any more than all antiseizure medications or all antihypertensives are equivalent; they have different pharmacodynamics, duration of action, and affinity for receptors, among other things, all of which translate to different risks and benefits. Consideration of treatment with the right formulation, at the right dose and time, and for the right patient will allow us to recommend safe, effective, and appropriate treatment for people with menopausal symptoms.

Objective: To assess contraceptive switching and discontinuation among participants enrolled in a contraceptive access project over 3 years and to identify variables associated with contraceptive change.

Methods: The HER Salt Lake study enrolled individuals between 2015 and 2017 from four clinics in Salt Lake County into a prospective, longitudinal cohort. All participants were able to switch or discontinue at no cost (between March 2016 and March 2020). We collected eight follow-up surveys over 3 years after enrollment. Each survey wave included questions about method use in the previous 4 weeks. We categorized participants in three ways, allowing for time-varying outcomes by wave: 1) those who reported using the same method as previous wave (continuers), 2) those who reported using a different method from previous wave (switchers), and 3) those who reported using no contraceptive method at that wave (discontinuers). We report the frequency of outcomes and conducted multinomial regression models assessing predictors of switching and discontinuation.

Results: Among 4,289 participants included in this analysis, 2,179 (50.8%) reported at least one instance of switching or discontinuation, and 2,110 (49.1%) reported continuing with their baseline method at the end of the study. Those reporting method change (switching or discontinuing) reported an average of 1.93 change events over the study follow-up period (range 1-8). Among those reporting any method change, 522 participants (23.9%) reporting at least one instance of both switching and discontinuation. Among those reporting any instance of discontinuation (n=966), 498 (51.6%) never reported uptake of a subsequent method. Among those who did report a subsequent method (n=468), 210 (44.8%) reported restarting a previously used method, and 258 (55.1%) reported starting a new method. Although we identified overlap among variables associated with switching and discontinuation, other predictors were discordant between switching and discontinuation.

Conclusion: New contraceptive users commonly switch and discontinue methods. User behavior is associated with certain demographic characteristics and pregnancy planning.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02734199.

Objective: To estimate the association between mean arterial pressure during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in participants with chronic hypertension using data from the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial.

Methods: A secondary analysis of the CHAP trial, an open-label, multicenter randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment in pregnancy, was conducted. The CHAP trial enrolled participants with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure [BP] 140-159/90-104 mm Hg) and singleton pregnancies less than 23 weeks of gestation, randomizing them to active treatment (maintained on antihypertensive therapy with a goal BP below 140/90 mm Hg) or standard treatment (control; antihypertensives withheld unless BP reached 160 mm Hg systolic BP or higher or 105 mm Hg diastolic BP or higher). We used logistic regression to measure the strength of association between mean arterial pressure (average and highest across study visits) and to select neonatal outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (per 1-unit increase in millimeters of mercury) of the primary neonatal composite outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4) and individual secondary outcomes (neonatal intensive care unit admission [NICU], low birth weight [LBW] below 2,500 g, and small for gestational age [SGA]) were calculated.

Results: A total of 2,284 participants were included: 1,155 active and 1,129 control. Adjusted models controlling for randomization group demonstrated that increasing average mean arterial pressure per millimeter of mercury was associated with an increase in each neonatal outcome examined except NEC, specifically neonatal composite (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12, 95% CI, 1.09-1.16), NICU admission (aOR 1.07, 95% CI, 1.06-1.08), LBW (aOR 1.12, 95% CI, 1.11-1.14), SGA below the fifth percentile (aOR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), and SGA below the 10th percentile (aOR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Models using the highest mean arterial pressure as opposed to average mean arterial pressure also demonstrated consistent associations.

Conclusion: Increasing mean arterial pressure was positively associated with most adverse neonatal outcomes except NEC. Given that the relationship between mean arterial pressure and adverse pregnancy outcomes may not be consistent at all mean arterial pressure levels, future work should attempt to further elucidate whether there is an absolute threshold or relative change in mean arterial pressure at which fetal benefits are optimized along with maternal benefits.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02299414.

Objective: To describe population-level utilization of fertility-sparing surgery and outcome of reproductive-aged patients with early epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery in the United States.

Methods: This retrospective study queried the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program. The study included 3,027 patients younger than age 50 years with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer receiving primary surgical therapy from 2007 to 2020. Fertility-sparing surgery was defined as preservation of one ovary and the uterus for unilateral lesion and preservation of the uterus for bilateral lesions. Temporal trend of fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with linear segmented regression with log-transformation. Overall survival associated with fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with Cox proportional hazard regression model.

Results: A total of 534 patients (17.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. At the cohort level, the utilization of fertility-sparing surgery was 13.4% in 2007 and 21.8% in 2020 ( P for trend=.009). Non-Hispanic White individuals (2.8-fold), those with high-grade serous histology (2.2-fold), and individuals with stage IC disease (2.3-fold) had a more than twofold increase in fertility-sparing surgery utilization during the study period (all P for trend<.05). After controlling for the measured clinicopathologic characteristics, patients who received fertility-sparing surgery had overall survival comparable with that of patients who had nonsparing surgery (5-year rates 93.6% vs 92.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI, 0.57-1.35). This survival association was consistent in high-grade serous (5-year rates 92.9% vs 92.4%), low-grade serous (100% vs 92.2%), clear cell (97.5% vs 86.1%), mucinous (92.1% vs 86.6%), low-grade endometrioid (95.7% vs 97.7%), and mixed (93.3% vs 83.7%) histology (all P >.05). In high-grade endometrioid tumor, fertility-sparing surgery was associated with decreased overall survival (5-year rates 71.9% vs 93.8%, adjusted hazard ratio 2.90, 95% CI, 1.09-7.67). Among bilateral ovarian lesions, fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with overall survival (5-year rates 95.8% vs 92.5%, P =.364). Among 41,914 patients who had epithelial ovarian cancer with any age and stage, those younger than age 50 years with stage I disease increased from 8.6% to 10.9% during the study period ( P for trend=.002).

Conclusion: Nearly one in five reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer underwent fertility-sparing surgery in recent years in the United States. More than 90% of reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were alive at the 5-year timepoint, except for those with high-grade endometrioid tumors.