Erica Cahill, MD

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101122

View details for PubMedID 37549735

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100986

View details for Web of Science ID 001010572100001

Abstract

To assess cabergoline's efficacy at decreasing breast symptoms after second-trimester abortion or pregnancy loss.This was a double-blinded, block-randomized superiority trial comparing cabergoline 1 mg once to placebo for preventing bothersome breast engorgement after second-trimester uterine evacuation. We enrolled pregnant people at 18-28 weeks of gestation who were English- or Spanish-speaking and without contraindication to the study drug. Participants completed a validated, piloted, electronic survey at baseline and at multiple timepoints through 2 weeks postprocedure to assess breast symptoms, side effects, and bother. Our primary outcome was any breast symptoms (a composite of engorgement, milk leakage, tenderness, and need for pain relief) on day 4; we planned to enroll 80 patients to show a 30% difference in breast symptoms (80% power, =0.049). A subgroup of participants returned for serum prolactin levels.After screening 150 patients from April 2021 to June 2022, we enrolled 73 participants. Baseline demographics were balanced between groups: median gestational age was 21 weeks (range 18-26 weeks), 56.2% of participants were nulliparous, 34.2% self-identified as Hispanic, and 37.0% had public insurance. At baseline, reported breast symptoms were similar between groups. Among 69 participants who returned surveys on day 4, significantly fewer participants receiving cabergoline reported any breast symptoms compared with placebo (27.8% vs 97.0%, P<.001) (primary outcome) and fewer reported significant bother (2.8% vs 33.3%, P=.001) (secondary outcome). These differences persisted through day 14. Reported incidence and severity of bother from side effects were similar between groups: most common were constipation, fatigue, and headache. Serum prolactin levels were similar at baseline. On day 4, mean serum prolactin level was 6.5 ng/mL (SD 2.2) for those who received cabergoline and 18.0 ng/mL (SD 5.9) for placebo (P=.049).Cabergoline is an effective and well-tolerated strategy to prevent breast symptoms after second-trimester abortion or pregnancy loss.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04701333.

View details for DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005190

View details for PubMedID 37486652

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Dobbs vs Jackson case (Dobbs) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2022 rescinded the constitutional right to abortion care, resulting in immediate state bans and severe restrictions on abortion care in almost half of the states at the time of submission. This article reviews the current state of abortion education and training as well as available curricula and programmes to support continued training.RECENT FINDINGS: Prior to Dobbs, a national residency-level training programme, the Ryan Residency Training Program, has helped expand abortion care training in residency programs nationally, yet there remained many barriers to incorporating this training into practice, including practice and hospital restrictions. New state restrictions now additionally constrain almost half of all the Ob-Gyn residency programmes. Medical students benefit from education on options counselling and values exploration.SUMMARY: Abortion care education and training is in crisis. Almost half of the Ob-Gyn residents are training in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care. This threatens to create a workforce without critical early pregnancy management knowledge and skills. Residents are more likely to provide abortion care when they have scheduled routine training. Medical students can apply options counselling and values exploration knowledge broadly. Online education resources provide some patchwork solutions to continue abortion care education and training in this heavily restrictive landscape.

View details for DOI 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000825

View details for PubMedID 36342010

Abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify the likelihood of assessing all mandated fetal views during the second-trimester anatomy ultrasound prior to the proposed federal 20-week abortion ban.Retrospective cohort study of a random sample of 1,983 patients undergoing anatomy ultrasound in 2017 at a tertiary referral center. The difference in proportion of incomplete anatomic surveys prior compared with after 20-week gestation was analyzed using X 2 and adjusted logistic regression; difference in mean days elapsed from anomaly diagnosis to termination tested using t-tests and survival analysis.Incomplete views were more likely with initial ultrasound before 20 weeks (adjusted relative risk: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-1.94); 43.5% versus 26.1% were incomplete before and after 20 weeks, respectively. Fetal structural anomalies were identified in 6.4% (n=127/1,983) scans, with 38.0% (n=49) identified at follow-up after initial scan was incomplete. 22.8% (n=29) with an anomaly terminated.A complete assessment of fetal views during an anatomy ultrasound prior to 20-week gestation is often not technically feasible. Legislation limiting abortion to this gestational age would greatly impact patient's ability to make informed choices about their pregnancies. It is often not technically possible to complete anatomy ultrasound prior to 20-week gestation.. Often, anomalies are missed during early, incomplete anatomy ultrasounds.. After the diagnosis of a structural anomaly, one in five chose to terminate the pregnancy..

View details for DOI 10.1055/s-0042-1749138

View details for PubMedID 35576967

View details for Web of Science ID 000811070700179

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Permanent contraception has historically been more prevalent among non-White women with lower education and income. Given increasing popularity of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), we examine changing sociodemographic patterns of permanent contraception and LARC.STUDY DESIGN: We performed a descriptive analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) from 2006-2017, with multivariable analyses of the 2006-2010 and 2015-2017 cohorts. Using multinomial logistic regression, we investigate predictors of contraceptive category (permanent contraception versus LARC, lower-efficacy contraception versus LARC) in reproductive-aged women.RESULTS: 8,161 respondents were included in two distinct but analogous regression analyses: 1) the most recent survey cohort, 2015-2017, and 2) the cohort a decade prior, 2006-2010. Over this period, the prevalence of LARC increased nearly three-fold (6.2% to 16.7%), while permanent contraception use trended downwards (22% to 18.6%). Yet, in adjusted models, we observed little change in the sociodemographic predictors of permanent contraception: from the early to recent cohort, use of permanent contraception (versus LARC) remained less likely among college graduates (multinomial odds ratio (OR) 0.45[95% CI 0.21, 0.97]) and Hispanic women (OR 0.41[0.21, 0.82]). In addition, high income (>$74,999) and metropolitan residence came to predict less use (OR 0.33[0.13, 0.84] and 0.47[0.23, 0.97]). Multiparity, advanced age (over 35), and marital status remained strong predictors of permanent contraception.CONCLUSION: Although use of LARC nearly equals that of permanent contraception in the most recent NSFG survey, socioeconomic differences persist. Continued effort is needed to detect and address structural barriers to accessing the most effective forms of contraception for women.IMPLICATIONS: Comparing 2006-2010 to 2015-2017, reliance on female permanent contraception decreased while LARC use increased, making prevalence more similar. However, significant socioeconomic differences persist in who chooses permanent contraception, with urban, educated, higher-income women more likely to use LARC. Ongoing efforts are needed to understand and reduce economic barriers to LARC.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.12.008

View details for PubMedID 33359509

View details for Web of Science ID 000554572900348

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the current state of self-managed or self-induced abortion in the United States and the emerging legal, political, and research questions surrounding this issue.RECENT FINDINGS: With the exponential rise of restrictive antiabortion laws in the United States, it has become increasingly difficult to access safe and legal abortion services. One response to this hostile environment for reproductive care access is an increased interest in methods of self-induced or self-managed abortions, primarily by medications sourced outside the medical setting. Medication abortion is established as a safe and effective method of ending a pregnancy. Compared with clinic-based care, the two most pressing concerns regarding the safety of self-managed abortion are that people seeking abortion will incorrectly self-identifying as appropriate candidates and that they will not know or be able to access medical care if needed. There is therefore an increasing need for medical providers to learn about and researchers to evaluate the incidence, safety and efficacy of self-management of abortion. Simultaneously, reproductive law experts must continue to develop and educate on the legal frameworks to protect and decriminalize people seeking self-managed abortion as well as their care providers.SUMMARY: Emerging research suggests that abortion outside the medical setting, or self-managed abortion, is an overall safe and effective way to end a pregnancy. However, significant legal barriers and stigma remain. The safest environment for self-managed abortion (SMA) is one where accurate information is available, medical care is accessible when needed, and all methods of abortion remain legal.

View details for DOI 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000585

View details for PubMedID 31693568

View details for Web of Science ID 000473810000080

Abstract

Misoprostol as an Adjunct to Overnight Osmotic Dilators Prior to Second Trimester Dilation and Evacuation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cahill EP, Henkel AG, Shaw JG, Shaw KA OBJECTIVE: To understand effect of adjunct misoprostol with overnight osmotic dilators for dilation and evacuation for cervical preparation after 16 weeks gestation on procedure time and dilation, complication rate, and side effects.We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, POPLINE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using search terms for second trimester, abortion, misoprostol, dilators and reviewed reference lists of published reports. Randomized controlled trials of cervical preparation for second trimester D&E using overnight osmotic dilators comparing adjunct misoprostol to placebo were included. Weighted mean and standard deviation (SD) and pooled binary outcomes were compared with two sample t-test or chi-square respectively.Among 84 articles identified, three met inclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials comparing adjunct misoprostol to placebo with overnight osmotic dilators prior to second trimester abortion with 457 total subjects at 16-24 weeks gestation (misoprostol n=228; placebo n=229). In the meta-analysis, misoprostol as compared to placebo did not significantly decrease mean procedure times (8.5 + 4.6 vs 9.6 + 5.8 minutes, p=0.78) or need for manual dilation (18% vs 28%, p=0.23). There was no difference in total complications (p=0.61), major complications (hemorrhage, uterine perforation, hospitalization, p=0.44), or cervical lacerations (p=0.87).Current limited evidence suggests that use of adjunctive misoprostol with osmotic dilators after 16 weeks does not affect procedure time or need for manual dilation. Further research is needed to determine if adjunctive misoprostol affects major complications and blood loss.Adjunctive misoprostol does not affect procedure time or need for manual dilation in mid to late second trimester abortion. Further research is needed to determine the effect of adjunctive misoprostol on major complications and blood loss.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.09.005

View details for PubMedID 31811840

View details for DOI 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000491

View details for Web of Science ID 000455903200010

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.07.013

View details for Web of Science ID 000443000400003

Abstract

The immediate postpartum period is a critical moment for contraceptive access and an opportunity to initiate long acting reversible contraception, including insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). The use of the IUD in the postpartum period is a safe practice with few contraindications and many benefits. While an IUD placed during the postpartum period is more likely to expel compared to one placed at the postpartum visit, women initiating IUDs at the time of delivery are also more likely to continue to use an IUD compared to women planning to follow up for an interval IUD insertion. This review will focus on the most recent clinical and programmatic updates on postpartum IUD practice. We discuss postpartum IUD expulsion and continuation, eligibility criteria and contraindications, safety in regards to breastfeeding, and barriers to access. Our aim is to summarize evidence related to postpartum IUDs and encourage those involved in the health care system to remove barriers to this worthwhile practice.

View details for PubMedID 30031750

Abstract

To review updates in how abortion care is depicted and analysed though various media outlets: news, television, film, and social media.A surge in recent media-related abortion research has recognized several notable and emerging themes: abortion in the news media is often inappropriately sourced and politically motivated; abortion portrayal in US film and television is frequently misrepresented; and social media has a new and significant role in abortion advocacy.The portrayal of abortion onscreen, in the news, and online through social media has a significant impact on cultural, personal, and political beliefs in the United States. This is an emerging field of research with wide spread potential impact across several arenas: medicine, policy, public health.

View details for PubMedID 28915157