Associations of reproductive and breastfeeding history with anti-Müllerian hormone concentration among African-American women of reproductive age.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are gravidity, parity and breastfeeding history associated with anti-Müllerian hormone concentration among African-American women of reproductive age? DESIGN: This study included baseline data from the Study of the Environment, Lifestyle and Fibroids, a 5-year longitudinal study of African-American women. Within this community cohort, data from 1392 women aged 25-35 years were analysed. The primary outcome was serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration measured using the Ansh Labs picoAMH assay, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Multivariable linear regression models were used to estimate mean differences in anti-Müllerian hormone concentration (ß) and 95% CI by self-reported gravidity, parity and breastfeeding history, with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of the 1392 participants, 1063 had a history of gravidity (76.4%). Of these, 891 (83.8%) were parous and 564 had breastfed. Multivariable-adjusted regression analyses found no appreciable difference in anti-Müllerian hormone concentration between nulligravid participants and those with a history of gravidity (ß = -0.025, 95% CI -0.145 to 0.094). Among participants with a history of gravidity, there was little difference in anti-Müllerian hormone concentration between parous and nulliparous participants (ß = 0.085, 95% CI -0.062 to 0.232). There was also little association between anti-Müllerian hormone concentration and breastfeeding history (ever versus never: ß = 0.009, 95% CI -0.093 to 0.111) or duration of breastfeeding (per 1-month increase: ß = -0.002, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Gravidity, parity and breastfeeding history were not meaningfully associated with anti-Müllerian hormone concentration in this large sample of the Study of the Environment, Lifestyle and Fibroids cohort.

Trends in Emergency Department Utilization Among Women With Leiomyomas in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in emergency department (ED) visits in the United States with a primary diagnosis of leiomyomas, subsequent admissions, and associated charges. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database was used to retrospectively identify all ED visits from 2006 to 2017 among women aged 18-55 years with a primary diagnosis of leiomyomas as indicated by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes. Trends in ED visits and subsequent admissions were analyzed and stratified by patient and hospital characteristics. Secondary ICD codes, Current Procedural Terminology codes, and hospital charges were analyzed. A multivariate regression model was used to identify predictors of admission. RESULTS: Although the number of ED visits for leiomyomas increased from 28,732 in 2006 to 65,685 in 2017, the admission rate decreased, from 23.9% in 2006 to 11.1% in 2017. Emergency department visits for leiomyomas were highest among women who were aged 36-45 years (44.5%), in the lowest income quartile (36.1%), privately insured (38.3%), and living in the South (46.2%). Admission was more likely at nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.39) or those located in the Northeast (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.15-1.68). Patient characteristics associated with admission included older age (26-35 years: OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21-1.66; 36-45 years: OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.72-2.34; 46-55 years: OR 2.60, 95% CI 2.23-3.03) and bleeding-related complaints (OR 14.92, 95% CI 14.00-15.90). Admission was least likely in uninsured patients (Medicare: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21-1.54; Medicaid: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36; private: OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32-1.56). CONCLUSION: Although ED visits for leiomyomas are increasing, admission rates for these visits are decreasing. The substantial decline in admissions suggests many of these visits could potentially be addressed in a non-acute-care setting. However, when women with leiomyomas present with a bleeding-related complaint, the odds of admission increase 15-fold. There is an apparent disparity in likelihood of admission based on insurance type.