Voices on Zika: Reproductive Autonomy and Shared Decision-Making During an Evolving Epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to understand the degree to which pregnant individuals exposed to emerging infections, such as Zika, are engaged by providers in shared decision-making and explore potential barriers to inform strategies to improve care for those most at risk for inequities. Studies have demonstrated that Latinx and Black people are less likely to engage in shared decision-making and are less engaged by providers. Limited research explores factors impacting shared decision-making in prenatal care and in the setting of recent epidemics. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study of individuals eligible for prenatal screening owing to Zika exposure during pregnancy. Given an established connection between autonomy and shared decision-making, we used the Reproductive Autonomy Scale and the Three Talk Model for shared decision-making to inform our semistructured interview guide. Interviews were conducted in Spanish or English. and participants were recruited from a federally qualified health center and a tertiary care obstetric clinic until thematic saturation was achieved. Interviews were recorded, translated, and transcribed and two coders used modified grounded theory to generate themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 participants from May to December 2017. Participant narratives demonstrated reproductive autonomy in pregnancy decision-making, with decision support from families, fatalism in pregnancy planning, and limited engagement by providers around decisions and implications of Zika virus testing. Hierarchy in provider dynamics, perceived stigma around emigration and travel, and language barriers impacted participant engagement in shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Participants demonstrated personal autonomy in reproductive decision-making, but demonstrated limited engagement in shared decision-making with regard to prenatal Zika testing. Provider promotion of shared decision-making using culturally centered decision tools to elicit underlying beliefs and deepen context for option, choice, and decision talk is critical in prenatal counseling to support equitable outcomes during evolving pandemics.

Management of Cervical Ectopic Pregnancies: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate published cases of cervical ectopic pregnancy between 2000 and 2018 and compare management strategies and treatment success rates based on initial patient characteristics. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to capture peer-reviewed citations published between 2000 and 2018. Cases reporting either ß-hCG level, crown-rump length, or gestational sac diameter for each individual patient were included. Data regarding the article information, patient characteristics, treatment used, and outcomes were collected. Initial success was defined as resolution of the cervical ectopic pregnancy with the predefined treatment plan. Initial failure was defined as the requirement of additional unplanned interventions due to the predefined treatment plan not being successful. End success was defined as resolution of the cervical ectopic pregnancy without hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 204 articles from 44 countries comprising 454 cases were reviewed. The initial ß-hCG level ranged from 9 to 286,500, with a median of 14,773, and gestational age ranged from 4 to 18 weeks, with an average of 7 4/7 weeks (±2 0/7 weeks). In looking at initial success, compared with methotrexate alone, dilation, and curettage (odds ratio [OR] 2.26; 95% CI 2.64-10.45), dilation and curettage combined with uterine artery embolization (OR 4.85; 95% CI 2.06-11.44) and uterine artery embolization (OR 5.17; 95% CI 1.14-23.53) were more effective options. More than half of patients (50.2%) required multiple interventions, and 41 (9%) resulted in hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Management of cervical ectopic pregnancies should be guided by patient stability, ß-hCG level, size of pregnancy, and fetal cardiac activity but may benefit from a planned multimodal approach.

Correction to: Estrogen-based hormone therapy in women with primary ovarian insufficiency: a systematic review.

In the original publication, the given and family name of the author Mohammad Hassan Murad was incorrect. This has been corrected with this erratum.

Estrogen-based hormone therapy in women with primary ovarian insufficiency: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Sex hormones play a role in bone density, cardiovascular health, and wellbeing throughout reproductive lifespan. Women with primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) have lower estrogen levels requiring hormone therapy (HT) to manage symptoms and to protect against adverse long-term health outcomes. Yet, the effectiveness of HT in preventing adverse outcomes has not been systematically assessed. We summarize the evidence regarding effects of HT on bone and cardiovascular health in women with POI. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus was conducted by a medical reference librarian from database inception to January 2016. Randomized trials and observational cohort studies with an estrogen-based HT intervention in women with POI under the age of 40 were included. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to assess eligibility and risk of bias, and extract data of interest from each study. RESULTS: The search identified 1670 articles; 12 met inclusion criteria. Four randomized clinical trials and eight cohort studies at high risk of bias enrolled 806 women with POI. The most common HT formulations were transdermal estradiol and oral conjugated equine estrogen combined with medroxyprogesterone acetate. Bone mineral density was the most frequent outcome, with three out of eight studies showing HT associated increase benefits. Only one study reported effects on fractures or vasomotor symptoms and none on cardiovascular mortality. Results regarding lipid profiles were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting bone and cardiovascular benefits of HT in women with POI is limited by high risk of bias, reliance on surrogate outcomes, and heterogeneity of trials regarding the formulation, dose, route of administration, and regimen of HT. Further research addressing patient important outcomes such as fractures, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality are crucial to optimize benefits of this therapy.

Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on bone and cardiovascular outcomes in women with turner syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with Turner syndrome have adverse bone and cardiovascular outcomes from chronic estrogen deficiency. Hence, long-term estrogen replacement therapy is the cornerstone treatment. The estimates of its effect and optimal use, however, remain uncertain. We aimed to summarize the benefits and harms of estrogen replacement therapy on bone, cardiovascular, vasomotor and quality of life outcomes in patients with Turner syndrome. A comprehensive search of four databases was performed from inception through January 2016. Randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies studying the effect of estrogen replacement therapy in patients with Turner syndrome under the age of 40 were included. Independently and in duplicate reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were based on route of administration and type of estrogen formulation. Twenty-five studies at moderate to high risk of bias (12 randomized trials, 13 cohort studies) with 771 patients were included. Using random-effects models, estrogen replacement therapy showed an increase in bone mineral density [weighted mean change from baseline 0.09 g/cm2 (0.04-0.14)] that differed by type of estrogen but not route of administration. Oral estrogen replacement therapy showed a higher increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels when compared to transdermal [weighted mean difference 9.33 mg/dl (4.82-13.85)] with no significant effect on other lipid fractions. The current evidence suggests possible benefit of estrogen replacement therapy on bone mineral density and high density lipoprotein cholesterol. Whether this improvement translates into changes in patient important outcomes (cardiovascular events or fractures) remains uncertain. Larger randomized clinical trials with direct comparisons on patient important outcomes are necessary.