Early Pregnancy Loss Management in the Emergency Department vs Outpatient Setting

Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation

OBJECTIVES

To perform cost analyses of foregoing RhD blood type testing and administration of Rh immunoglobulin (RhIg) for bleeding in pregnancy at <12 weeks gestation in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We created a decision-analytic model comparing the current standard treatment pathway for patients who have threatened, spontaneous, or induced abortion in the United States, with a new pathway foregoing RhD testing and administration of RhIg for those who are RhD-negative at <12 weeks gestation, assuming that the risk of sensitization is 0%. We derived population and cost estimates from the current literature and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to screen to avoid one case of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. We performed sensitivity analyses assuming Rh-sensitization risks of 1.5% and 3% and varying the subsequent pregnancy rates from 44% to 100%.

RESULTS

The annual savings to health care payers in the United States of foregoing RhD testing and RhIg administration with bleeding events at <12 weeks are $5.5 million/100,000 total pregnancies, assuming the sensitization risk is 0%. In sensitivity analyses with a sensitization risk of 1.5% and subsequent pregnancy rate of 84.3% foregoing Rh testing and RhIg administration would save $2.8 million/100,000 pregnancies, with a NNT of 7322 and a number needed to screen of 48,816. At a 3% sensitization rate, the current standard treatment pathway is most economical.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an opportunity to save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies by withholding RhIg in specific situations and conserving it for use later in pregnancy.

IMPLICATIONS

Cost analyses support foregoing RhD blood type screening and RhIg administration at <12 weeks gestation if the sensitization rate is <3%. By deimplementing this low-value care, payers in the United States can save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies and conserve RhIg for use later in pregnancy.

Abortion Restrictions Threaten Miscarriage Management In The United States

Miscarriage and abortion require similar clinical management. Restrictions placed on abortion threaten the quality of miscarriage care, a policy spillover that affects many Americans. We combined vital statistics with life-table parameters to estimate that 1,034,000 miscarriages occur annually, including nearly 400,000 in US states with abortion bans. Attempts to restrict mifepristone access further threaten miscarriage management.

Benzodiazepine Use During Pregnancy and Risk of Miscarriage

Importance

Benzodiazepine use during pregnancy has raised significant concerns due to the potential harmful effects of this drug class on neonates. Studies on the association between benzodiazepine use and the risk of miscarriage are limited.

Objective

To quantify the risk of miscarriage associated with benzodiazepine use during pregnancy after controlling for unmeasured confounders and exposure time trends.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a nationwide, population-based case-time-control study using Taiwan's National Birth Certificate Application database and the National Health Insurance database. Pregnancies resulting in miscarriage between 2004 and 2018 were included in the case group and were 1:1 matched with exposure time-trend control individuals using disease risk score, considering demographic characteristics and prepregnancy comorbidities. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to March 2023.

Exposures

Discordant exposures to benzodiazepines during risk period (1-28 days before miscarriage) and 2 reference periods (31-58 days and 181-208 days before the last menstrual period) were compared for each pregnancy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Miscarriage was defined as any pregnancy loss occurring between the first prenatal care visit (usually 8 weeks) and the 19th completed week of pregnancy.

Results

This study comprised a total of 3 067 122 pregnancies among 1 957 601 women, 136 134 of which (4.4%) resulted in miscarriage. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 30.61 (5.91) years. The use of benzodiazepines during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of miscarriage (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.52-1.87), and consistent findings were observed across multiple sensitivity analyses considering different time windows and accounting for misclassification. In subgroup analyses, an increased risk of miscarriage was associated with each commonly used individual benzodiazepine, ranging from case-time-control ORs of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.17-1.66) for alprazolam to 2.52 (95% CI, 1.89-3.36) for fludiazepam.

Conclusions and Relevance

This nationwide case-time-control study revealed an increased risk of miscarriage associated with benzodiazepine use during pregnancy after accounting for measurable confounders, and results were unlikely to be due to unmeasured confounding. These findings underscore the necessity for health care professionals to meticulously balance the risk-benefit ratio when considering the use of benzodiazepines to treat psychiatric and sleep disorders during pregnancy.

The evolving role of emergency medicine in family planning services

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The emergency department serves as an essential access point for a variety of healthcare services. This review will examine the recent expansion of family planning and reproductive health services in the emergency department.

RECENT FINDINGS

An increasing number of patients present to emergency departments for early pregnancy loss (EPL), abortion care, and contraceptive management. Availability of comprehensive EPL management varies dramatically, possibly due to lack of provider knowledge or training. Particularly in remote settings, educational interventions - such as providing information about medication management and training in uterine aspiration - may standardize this management. Restrictive abortion laws raise concerns for changing and increased patient presentations to the emergency department for complications related to unsafe or self-managed abortion. Emergency medicine providers should anticipate that more patients will present without a prior ultrasound confirming intrauterine pregnancy prior to initiating no-touch or self-managed abortions. Particularly among pediatric patients, there may be a role for contraceptive counseling during an emergency department visit. Novel strategies, including web-based interventions and emergency department-based curricula for contraceptive counseling, may help reach those who otherwise may not seek reproductive healthcare in a clinic setting.

SUMMARY

The intersection of emergency medicine and reproductive healthcare is a promising frontier for providing immediate, patient-centered, family planning care. Continued research and provider education are necessary to refine these approaches, address disparities, and respond to the changing reproductive healthcare landscape.

Navigating Legal Risks When Providing Essential Reproductive Care Post-Roe

In this Viewpoint, the authors discuss how clinicians can weigh legal risks against risks to patients’ health and lives when providing essential reproductive care.

The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs

BACKGROUND

Early pregnancy loss is a common medical problem, and the recommended treatments overlap with those used for induced abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the incorporation of clinical and patient factors when applying conservative published imaging guidelines to determine the timing of intervention for early pregnancy loss. However, in places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians who manage early pregnancy loss may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate between early pregnancy loss and a potentially viable pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also notes that specific treatment modalities that are frequently used to induce abortion, including the use of mifepristone in medical therapy and surgical aspiration in an office setting, are cost-effective and beneficial for patients with early pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine how US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency training institutions adhere to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for early pregnancy loss management, including the timing and types of interventions, and to evaluate the relationship with institutional and state abortion restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN

From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs by emailing them and requesting that a faculty member complete a survey about early pregnancy loss practices at their institution. We asked about location of diagnosis, use of imaging guidelines before offering intervention, treatment options available at their institution, and program and personal characteristics. We used chi-square tests and logistic regressions to compare the availability of early pregnancy loss care based on institutional indication-based abortion restrictions and state legislative hostility to abortion care.

RESULTS

Of the 149 programs that responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported that they did not offer any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss unless rigid imaging criteria were met, whereas the remaining 75 (50.3%) programs reported that they incorporated imaging guidelines with other factors. In an unadjusted analysis, programs were less likely to incorporate other factors with imaging criteria if they were in a state with legislative policies that were hostile toward abortion (33% vs 79%; P<.001) or if the institution restricted abortion by indication (27% vs 88%; P<.001). Mifepristone was used less often in programs located in hostile states (32% vs 75%; P<.001) or in institutions with abortion restrictions (25% vs 86%; P<.001). Similarly, office-based suction aspiration use was lower in hostile states (48% vs 68%; P=.014) and in institutions with restrictions (40% vs 81%; P<.001). After controlling for program characteristics, including state policies and affiliation with family planning training programs or religious entities, institutional abortion restrictions were the only significant predictor of rigid reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9).

CONCLUSION

In training institutions that restrict access to induced abortion based on indication for care, residency programs are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene in early pregnancy loss as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Programs in restrictive institutional and state environments are also less likely to offer the full range of early pregnancy loss treatment options. With state abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss may also be hindered.