Abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses and care following COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with small, transitory effects on uterine bleeding, possibly including menstrual timing, flow, and duration, in some individuals. However, changes in health care seeking, diagnosis, and workup for abnormal uterine bleeding in the COVID-19 vaccine era are less clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis and diagnostic evaluation in a large integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Using segmented regression, we assessed whether the availability of COVID-19 vaccines was associated with changes in monthly, population-based rates of incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses relative to the prepandemic period in health system members aged 16 to 44 years who were not menopausal. We also compared clinical and demographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with incident abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2020 and October 13, 2021 by vaccination status (never vaccinated, vaccinated in the 60 days before diagnosis, vaccinated >60 days before diagnosis). Furthermore, we conducted detailed chart review of patients diagnosed with abnormal uterine bleeding within 1 to 60 days of COVID-19 vaccination in the same time period. RESULTS: In monthly populations ranging from 79,000 to 85,000 female health system members, incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosis per 100,000 person-days ranged from 8.97 to 19.19. There was no significant change in the level or trend in the incidence of abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses between the prepandemic (January 2019-January 2020) and post-COVID-19 vaccine (December 2020-December 2021) periods. A comparison of clinical characteristics of 2717 abnormal uterine bleeding cases by vaccination status suggested that abnormal bleeding among recently vaccinated patients was similar or less severe than abnormal bleeding among patients who had never been vaccinated or those vaccinated >60 days before. There were also significant differences in age and race of patients with incident abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses by vaccination status (Ps<.02). Never-vaccinated patients were the youngest and those vaccinated >60 days before were the oldest. The proportion of patients who were Black/African American was highest among never-vaccinated patients, and the proportion of Asian patients was higher among vaccinated patients. Chart review of 114 confirmed postvaccination abnormal uterine bleeding cases diagnosed from December 2020 through October 13, 2021 found that the most common symptoms reported were changes in timing, duration, and volume of bleeding. Approximately one-third of cases received no diagnostic workup; 57% had no etiology for the bleeding documented in the electronic health record. In 12% of cases, the patient mentioned or asked about a possible link between their bleeding and their recent COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: The availability of COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a change in incidence of medically attended abnormal uterine bleeding in our population of over 79,000 female patients of reproductive age. In addition, among 2717 patients with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnoses in the period following COVID-19 vaccine availability, receipt of the vaccine was not associated with greater bleeding severity.

Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.