Withholding antibiotics does not reduce clinical pregnancy outcomes of natural cycle frozen embryo transfers.
Fertility and sterility
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of withholding doxycycline on the success rate of natural cycle frozen embryo transfers (NC-FET).DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.SETTING: Single academic institution.PATIENT(S): Women undergoing 250 NC-FET with euploid blastocysts performed by a single provider.INTERVENTION(S): One hundred and twenty-five NC-FET cycles performed after January 2019 without antibiotic administration compared with 125 NC-FET cycles before January 2019 with doxycycline administration.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome: live birth (LB) or ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR, defined as pregnancies ≥13 weeks); secondary outcomes included positive beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) level and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR, defined as the presence of fetal cardiac activity on ultrasound).RESULT(S): Each group of women comprised 125 NC-FET during the study period of March 2017 to March 2020. The women's mean age was 36.3 years and mean body mass index was 24 kg/m2. Between the two groups, the baseline characteristics were similar, including age, body mass index, race, smoking status, parity, endometrial thickness, Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology diagnosis, and number of prior failed transfers. Comparing NC-FET with doxycycline administration versus without, we found no statistically significant difference in LB-OPR (64% vs. 62.6%), positive beta-hCG (72.8% vs. 74.0%), or CPR (68% vs. 65.9%). After controlling for all variables in a logistic regression, doxycycline still had no effect on LB-OPR.CONCLUSION(S): In this analysis of similar patients undergoing NC-FET by a single provider, withholding doxycycline does not reduce success rates. Given the risks of antibiotics, our findings support withholding their use in NC-FET.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.038
View details for PubMedID 33423784
Misoprostol-augmented induction of labour for third trimester fetal demise in a patient with prior hysterotomies
British Medical Journal Case Reports
2021; 14: 1-4
View details for DOI 10.1136/bcr-2020-239872
Socioeconomic Differences Persist in Use of Permanent versus Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: An Analysis of the National Survey for Family Growth, 2006-2010 versus 2015-2017.
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
THE EFFECT OF ANTIBIOTIC ADMINISTRATION ON NATURAL CYCLE FROZEN EMBRYO TRANSFERS.
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. 2020: E302
View details for Web of Science ID 000579355301008
Sociodemographic Trends in Long Acting Reversible Contraception vs. Female Sterilization, 2006-2017
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2020: 100S
View details for Web of Science ID 000554572900348
Barriers to Completing Second-trimester Antenatal Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2019: 25S
View details for Web of Science ID 000473810000080
Anthropology in public health emergencies: what is anthropology good for?
BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH
2018; 3 (2): e000534
Recent outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (2013-2016) and Zika virus (2015-2016) bring renewed recognition of the need to understand social pathways of disease transmission and barriers to care. Social scientists, anthropologists in particular, have been recognised as important players in disease outbreak response because of their ability to assess social, economic and political factors in local contexts. However, in emergency public health response, as with any interdisciplinary setting, different professions may disagree over methods, ethics and the nature of evidence itself. A disease outbreak is no place to begin to negotiate disciplinary differences. Given increasing demand for anthropologists to work alongside epidemiologists, clinicians and public health professionals in health crises, this paper gives a basic introduction to anthropological methods and seeks to bridge the gap in disciplinary expectations within emergencies. It asks: 'What can anthropologists do in a public health crisis and how do they do it?' It argues for an interdisciplinary conception of emergency and the recognition that social, psychological and institutional factors influence all aspects of care.
View details for PubMedID 29607097
Anthropological approaches to medical humanitarianism
Medicine Anthropology Theory
2017; 4 (5): 1-22
View details for DOI 10.17157/mat.4.5.477
Immune Therapy and beta-Cell Death in Type 1 Diabetes
2013; 62 (5): 1676–80
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from immune-mediated destruction of insulin-producing β-cells. The killing of β-cells is not currently measurable; β-cell functional studies routinely used are affected by environmental factors such as glucose and cannot distinguish death from dysfunction. Moreover, it is not known whether immune therapies affect killing. We developed an assay to identify β-cell death by measuring relative levels of unmethylated INS DNA in serum and used it to measure β-cell death in a clinical trial of teplizumab. We studied 43 patients with recent-onset T1D, 13 nondiabetic subjects, and 37 patients with T1D treated with FcR nonbinding anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody (teplizumab) or placebo. Patients with recent-onset T1D had higher rates of β-cell death versus nondiabetic control subjects, but patients with long-standing T1D had lower levels. When patients with recent-onset T1D were treated with teplizumab, β-cell function was preserved (P < 0.05) and the rates of β-cell were reduced significantly (P < 0.05). We conclude that there are higher rates of β-cell death in patients with recent-onset T1D compared with nondiabetic subjects. Improvement in C-peptide responses with immune intervention is associated with decreased β-cell death.
View details for DOI 10.2337/db12-1207
View details for Web of Science ID 000318128700046
View details for PubMedID 23423576
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3636605