Hepatitis C virus detection and management after implementation of universal screening in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying cases of hepatitis C virus has important medical and public health consequences. In the setting of rising hepatitis C virus prevalence and highly effective treatment with direct-acting antivirals, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine guidelines recently changed to recommend universal screening for hepatitis C virus during pregnancy. However, there is little data on the influence of this policy change on case identification and management. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the influence of universal hepatitis C virus screening on our patient population. Our primary objective was to determine if there was a difference in the detected hepatitis C virus prevalence after the policy change. Our secondary objectives were to determine which factors were associated with a positive test for hepatitis C virus and to examine postpartum management of pregnant patients living with hepatitis C virus, including the (1) gastroenterology referral rate, (2) treatment rate, (3) infantile hepatitis C virus screening rate, and (4) factors associated with being referred for treatment. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of deliveries that occurred before (July 2018-June 2020) and after (July 2020-December 2021) the implementation of universal hepatitis C virus screening. Information on hepatitis C virus and HIV status, if patients were screened for hepatitis C virus, history of intravenous drug use, and basic demographic information were abstracted from the electronic medical records. A subset of patients was administered a questionnaire regarding hepatitis C virus risk factors. For all patients who tested positive for hepatitis C virus, information on if they were referred for treatment in the postpartum period and if their infant was screened for hepatitis C virus were abstracted from the electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 8973 deliveries occurred during this study period. A total of 71 (0.79%) patients had a detectable viral load. With implementation of universal screening, hepatitis C virus screening rates increased from 5.78% to 77.25% of deliveries (P<.01). The hepatitis C virus prevalence rates before and after universal screening was implemented were 0.78% and 0.81%, respectively (P=.88). There were significant demographic shifts in our pregnant population over this time period, including a reduction in intravenous drug use. A subset of 958 patients completed a hepatitis C virus risk factor questionnaire, in addition to undergoing universal hepatitis C virus screening. Ten patients screened positive with universal screening; only 8 of these individuals would have been identified with risk-based screening. Among the patients with a detectable viral load, 67.61% were referred for treatment and 18.75% were treated. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that intravenous drug use was associated with significantly decreased odds of being referred for treatment (odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.59; P=.01). At the time of our evaluation, 52 infants were at least 18 months old and thus eligible for hepatitis C virus screening. Among these infants, 8 (15.38%) were screened for hepatitis C virus, and all were negative. CONCLUSION: Following the practice shift, we saw a significant increase in hepatitis C virus screening during pregnancy. However, postpartum treatment and infant screening remained low. Intravenous drug use was associated with a decreased likelihood of being referred for treatment. Pregnancy represents a unique time for hepatitis C virus case identification, although better linkage to care is needed to increase postpartum treatment.

Primary Dysmenorrhea: Diagnosis and Therapy.

Primary dysmenorrhea is defined as pain during the menstrual cycle in the absence of an identifiable cause. It is one of the most common causes of pelvic pain in women. Dysmenorrhea can negatively affect a woman's quality of life and interfere with daily activities. The pathophysiology of primary dysmenorrhea is likely a result of the cyclooxygenase pathway producing increased prostanoids, particularly prostaglandins (PGs). The increased PGs cause uterine contractions that restrict blood flow and lead to the production of anaerobic metabolites that stimulate pain receptors. Women with a history typical for primary dysmenorrhea can initiate empiric treatment without additional testing. Shared decision making is key to effective management of dysmenorrhea to maximize patient compliance and satisfaction. After a discussion of their risks and benefits, extremely effective empiric therapies are nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and contraceptive hormonal therapy. Other treatments for primary dysmenorrhea can be employed solely or in combination with other modalities, but the literature supporting their use is not as convincing. The physician should initiate an evaluation for secondary dysmenorrhea if the patient does not report improved symptomatology after being compliant with their medical regimen.

Pap smear versus speculum examination: can we teach providers to educate patients?

OBJECTIVE: To test whether provider-based training in focused patient communication can improve patient knowledge about Pap screening as part of the speculum examination in an urban urgent care setting. METHODS: A separate samples pretest, posttest study evaluated the intervention. Before the intervention, we surveyed a convenience sample of 383 consecutive patients who received a speculum examination in a gynecology urgent care clinic of an urban public hospital about their understanding of the Pap smear and its correct use. The intervention trained healthcare providers to briefly explain speculum examinations and Pap smears. After the intervention, we surveyed 130 additional consecutive patients. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with improved identification that a Pap smear had not been performed (57.7% preintervention vs. 70.7% postintervention, p = 0.013) and improved knowledge that the Pap smear screens only for cervical cancer (12.0% preintervention vs. 23.8% postintervention, p = 0.002). In logistic regression analysis controlling for age and other potential confounders, being in the postintervention group and speaking Spanish predicted correct identification of Pap test use (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.70, 1.54-4.75, and 2.98, 1.48-5.98, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In an urban urgent care setting, patients may lack awareness that screening tests are not being performed at the time of a problem-oriented pelvic examination. A targeted intervention to improve physician counseling was associated with partial improvement in patient awareness and knowledge.