Archive for the ‘Journal Articles’ Category

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 22 – Journals for May 2010

In this episode I discuss articles from the May journals.  Topics include amniotic fluid embolism, writing an academic resume,  the ever-present sFlt-1, and more!  Thanks to Sage Software for sponsoring the ACOG get together!

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 22 – Journals for May 2010

Thrombophilias and Insurance Companies: The problem with ACOG’s recent Practice Bulletin

April 26, 2010 7 comments

In this month’s Green Journal, ACOG published Practice Bulletin #111 “Inherited Thrombophilias in Pregnancy”.  This practice bulletin was an attempt to coalesce the available evidence on thrombophilias in pregnancy and to make some evidence based recommendations for how obstetricians should deal with the issue.

This is all well and good, but what happened next was not.  A few weeks after publication ACOG retracted the Practice Bulletin.  Though we don’t know for sure, this was likely due to an outcry the many MFMs who don’t agree with the published recommendations.  As of now, it is no longer available online, and exists only in the pages of the printed journal.  Per ACOG, a new version will be out this summer.

So why did this happen?

Read more…

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 18 – Journals for April 2010

April 26, 2010 3 comments

We discuss articles from the April 2010 Journals: Ovarian mass malignancy prediction, an new analysis of the labor curve, the ACOG Practice Bulletin on Thrombophilias and its sudden withdrawal, and a few other bits.

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 18 – Journals April 2010

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 16 – Grey Journal February 2010

Host Dr Nicholas Fogelson discusses articles from the Febrary issues of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.  We discuss a new ectopic protocol, a fun story, sFlt-1 in Molar Pregnancies, and why the Grey Journal is going to hell.

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 16 – Grey Journal February 2010

Grey Journal: New Protocol for Medical Treatment of Ectopics

February 22, 2010 1 comment

This month’s Grey Journal feels a little light on substance, but one article I liked was an article looking at a new protocol for use of methotrexate for treatment of ectopics(1).  This protocol looked at giving a second dose of MTX if the day 7 HCG is not 50% lower than the Day 1 HCG, without checking a day 4.  This is opposed to a typical single dose protocol, checking a day 4 and repeating MTX if the day 7 is not 15% lower than the day 4.

This study was based on data abstraction from 187 patients who were treated with single dose MTX for ectopic pregnancies, with demographics and HCG levels recorded over time.   Based on these data, a comparison was made between a Day 1,4,7 strategy and a Day 1,7 strategy.  Here’s what they found.

A Day 1,7 strategy has a very high sensitivity for picking up women who need another dose of MTX to successfully end an ectopic pregnancy, but a much lower specificity.  This means that with a Day 1,7 strategy many more women will get treated with a second dose of MTX than with a Day 1,4,7 strategy.  However, in tradeoff they will not need to get a day 4 blood draw.  Depending on Beta HCG levels, anywhere from 2 to 10 additional women will get a second MTX dose per Day 4 blood draw avoided with this strategy.

So here’s a few thoughts on this:

1) This strategy leads to a lot more methotrexate use, in order to avoid a blood draw.  From a cost point of view this could be a problem. Dr Thurman points out that MTX is inexpensive, but in many hospitals it is delivered as a chemotherapy agent.  Even if it is  regular injection, it usually isn’t available in the MD office and hospital nursing charges are high.  Actual cost of drug is low, but delivery of drug can be expensive.

2) Some people think we should be doing 2 dose MTX for everybody anyway.  Failure rates for single dose MTX are around 10% in a mixed population (2), though a mandatory 2-dose regimen hasn’t done much better in trials(3).   This regimen would be a middle ground between a 1 dose and mandatory 2 dose regimen.

As this is just pilot data, it will be interesting to see this against a 1,4,7 regimen in a randomized trial.  I know several of the investigators, and suspect that they will be doing this in the future.  I look forward to those results.   For now I will still use a 1,4,7 regiment, as to me a day 4 lab draw is not as big a deal as a second dose of MTX.  But that being said, if a patient really hated getting blood drawn, this might be a better option for them.   Then again if they hate blood draws much, maybe a laparoscopy would be better!


Thurman AR, Cornelius M, Korte J, Fylstra D. An alternative monitoring protocol for single-dose methotrexate therapy in ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obset Gynecol 2010; 202:139.e-16

Lipscomb GH, Bran D, McCord ML, Portera C, Ling FW. An analysis of 315 ectopic pregnancies treated with single-dose methotrexate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1354-1358

Barnhart K, Hummel AC, Sammel MD, Menon S, Jain J, Chakhtoura N
Use of “2-dose” regimen of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancy.
Fertil Steril. 2007 Feb;87(2):250-6. Epub 2006 Nov 13.

Lancet: Ulipristal vs Levonorgestrel for Emergency Contraception

February 9, 2010 8 comments

by Sharon Phillips, MD and Nicholas Fogelson, MD

Lots of people have been talking about Ulipristal acetate (Ellaone), a new emergency contraception option now available in the UK.  The buzz is that it is effective for 5 days instead of 3.

Currently in the US we have only one option for EC (Emergency Contraception): levonogestrel (Plan B), which is FDA labeled for use up to 72 hours after unprotected intercourse.  However, we now know that it is effective for up to 5 days after unprotected sex(1), though the efficacy seems to decrease the further out from the episode of intercourse you are.

It’s great to have a new EC option.  Having 2 options might help bring the price down (Plan B can range from $30 to $60 for one dose).  However, it may not be any better than what we already have.

Read more…

Categories: Journal Articles, Lancet

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 15 – Green and Grey Journals January 2010

February 4, 2010 1 comment

In this episode I discuss several articles from the January Issue of the Green an Grey journals, and a few articles from the Lancet to boot!  We discuss the prospective outcomes in thrombophilia, Metformin and Glyburide in GDM, Miso vs Pit for PPH, interstitial pregnancy,  and SFlt-1 and PLGF for detection of pre-eclampsia.  Thanks for listening!

Academic OB/GYN Episode 15 – Green and Grey Journal January 2010

Academic OB/GYN Podcast Episode 13 – Green Journal November-December 2009

December 22, 2009 2 comments

Host Nicholas Fogelson discusses articles from The Green Journal from November and December of 2009.  Topics include Flu Vaccines and Antiretrovirals in Pregnancy, HPV Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy (yes), Moxibustion for Version (crazy), and Stupid Birth Control Comparisons (Pharma gone wild)

Academic OB/GYN Episode 13 – Green Journal November-December 2009

I got published this month! Yahoo!

December 15, 2009 1 comment

Nothing like getting in press.  This project started over two years ago and now has made it to press.  Man this stuff takes a long time.  Congrats to my wife who was primary investigator on this!

Bottom line – using a paracervical block during second trimester abortion done under general anesthesia does not affect postoperative pain scores.

Impact of paracervical block on postabortion pain in patients undergoing abortion under general anesthesia.  Lazenby GB, Fogelson NS, Aeby T.  Contraception. 2009 Dec; 80(6):578.82.  Epub 2009 Jul 10.

Grey Journal Sept 2009 – No association between BMI and OCP effectiveness… or is there?

September 21, 2009 Leave a comment

This month’s Grey Journal brings us a bunch of great articles, but here’s one that caught my eye:

Oral Contraceptive effectiveness according to body mass index, weight, age, and other factors by Dinger et al.

I thought been pretty well established that oral birth control pills have somewhat lower effectiveness in patients with higher BMIs (30+), and then this study comes around and throws a wrench in the works:  In 112,659 women years of exposure and 545 unplanned pregnancies, there was no statistical association between patient BMI and contraception failure.

An unexpected result, for certain.  So here’s how they studied the questionThis study is a  secondary analysis of the EURAS-OC study, a large European prospective cohort study intended to investigate the potential association between the new progestin drosperinone and cardiovascular events, created by Bayer at the demands of European drug authorities.  This study created a huge dataset of women on oral contraceptives, including demographic data and long term clinical outcomes.  In order to investigate the effects of BMI on contraceptive failures, our compared rates of unintended pregnancy in different groups of women within the EURAS-OC study.  Given the large dataset, the authors were able to stratify risk of unintended pregnancy not only by BMI, but also by progestin.

After data analysis, overall failure rates were strikingly low – Year 1 failure rate was 0.75%, year 2 1.33%, year 3 1.53%, and year 4 1.67%.  Furthermore, for all progestins except for chlormadinone (which is not available in the US), there was no association between BMI and failure rate.    With chlormadinone there was a 3x risk of failure rate at BMI > 30, which is thought to be due to the highly lipophilic nature of that particular progestin, and thus a higher relative volume of distribution compared to other progestins.

So why is that all worth talking about?  – Its because this data is just so different that what we have seen before –

Holt et al Green Journal 2005 – case control of unintended pregnancies on OCPs, odds ratio of failure 1.58 – 2.22 for BMIs > 27, depending on level of obesity and consistency of OCP use.

Brunner  et al Ann Epidemiol 2006 – case control of unintended pregnancies on OCPs in South Carolina, odds ratio of failure  2.54 – 2.82 for obese women.

Brunner et al Matern Child Health 2005 – retrospective cohort of 18,445 women, adjusted OR for unintended pregnancy in obese women 1.73 – 1.75.

Furthermore, the overall failure rate of around 1% is much different than the 9% first  year failure rate reported in the last iteration of the US National Survey of Family Growth.

When we see such different results of studies that seem to ask the same question, one of the following must be true: 1) One of the studies is biased, or both are 2) The studies are looking at different populations or 3) The studies may be defining their outcomes differently.   In this case, I think all three are happening.

The biggest difference that I see between this study and the American studies is the way patients were recruited, and think this difference could have a strong effect on the outcomes.   This study was a prospective cohort with data gathered over many years.  Each patient studied was approached after they had decided to use OCPs.  If they decided to enter the study, they were closely monitored for years for a large number of outcomes, and had medication compliance frequently measured.   The American studies were either case control studies looking at contraceptive failures compared to matched controls, or in the case of the second Brunner study, a retrospectively constructed cohort.  So why does this matter?  It goes back to an old engineering saying: Anything you measure you will improve.  The patients in the European study knew they were in a study, and that they would be asked to report their OCP compliance, making them more likely to be compliant with medications than someone who does not know their outcomes would be analyzed.   2 American case control studies suggested that the effects of obesity on pill efficacy is pronounced in women who are not consistent with their pills.   As such, it is possible that this huge study misses the real life effect of obesity by producing a preposterous population of peristently perfect pill popping patients!

Another difference between the European study and the previous American data is the type of obesity seen in the study populations.   Unfortunately for America, we have a lot more obesity than Europe.  This study had a mean BMI of around 22, and sadly the current mean BMI in the United States is 26.4. This translates to a larger number of superobese ( > 35 ) in American study populations, which are not as well addressed in this large data set composed of less obese people.

Finally, overall failure rate is calculated much differently in the European study that in the large American population studies.  In the American studies women-years are counted in month by month increments, but only when women are sexually active.  The European study counts a woman-month irrespective of whether or not the woman has had sex in that month.  It is arguable which of these methods is more appropriate, but inarguable that it has a profound effect on the absolute value of the failure rate.  As we (the Americans) are counting months only when there is intercourse during the month, there will assuredly be a higher failure rates than if we excluded the non-exposed months, which increase the denominator(exposure) without possibly increasing the numerator(failures.)  As such, the overall failure rate of around 1% is difficult in this study is hard to compare to the American failure rate of 9%, as it could represent decreased sexual activity in Europe relative to America as much as it could represent different contraceptive efficacy.

So what do we take from all this?    I think this new study shows us that if people are highly compliant with OCPs, failure rates are very low and are not strongly affected by BMI – but given the potential biases created by study design and interpretation, I’m not ready to say that OCPs work just as well in obese and superobese women as they do in lower BMI women.

So what do you think?


Dinger JC, Cronin M, Möhner S, Schellschmidt I, Minh TD, Westhoff C. Oral contraceptive effectiveness according to body mass index, weight, age, and other factors.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;201(3):263.e1-9. Epub 2009 May 30.

Categories: Grey Journal
%d bloggers like this: