Pelvic abscess - to drain or not to drain?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pelvic abscess is a common gynaecological condition, particularly during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, possibly resulting from obstacles to accessing care during this time. To date, no consensus guideline on management exists with a lack of applicable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medical management with antibiotics alone, image-guided drainage and surgical management, despite this being a potentially life-threatening condition. RECENT FINDINGS: We present the current literature assessing risks, which contribute to failure of medical therapy, predictive models to guide management and reports of long-term sequelae. Consideration for early laparoscopic or image-guided drainage should be given to women in whom fertility is a priority, pelvic abscess at least 7 cm, white blood cell count on admission more than 16 x 1000/µl, bilateral pelvic abscess, intrauterine device in situ for more than 5.5 years and preexisting endometrioma. Pelvic abscess rupture or severe sepsis should always trigger timely drainage. SUMMARY: We present the current knowledge on management of pelvic abscesses to help guide clinical practice supported by the most recent evidence. We report the lack of high-quality evidence for many aspects of pelvic abscess treatment and call for well designed large multicentre RCTs to answer the question of which treatment yields the best outcomes.

If virtual gynecology clinics are here to stay, we need to include everyone.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic virtual clinics in gynecology were not commonplace in the United Kingdom or most other countries. Owing to the need to reconfigure health provision to caring for COVID-19 patients, reducing footfall in hospitals and restricted movement, telemedicine was rapidly introduced at scale in hospitals thought the United Kingdom. This happened without much consultation with service users and healthcare professionals. It is anticipated that after the pandemic, telemedicine will remain to some extent. The authors report how their hospital how their place of work, a large London teaching hospital, adopted virtual phone consultations in gynecology, along with a countrywide survey of 200 service users and healthcare professionals. Now it is important carry out a robust evaluation of outcomes (both clinician and patient experience) and also to take care that service users from disadvantaged backgrounds do not lose out.

Persons from racial and ethnic minority groups receiving medication for opioid use disorder experienced increased difficulty accessing harm reduction services during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic collided with the opioid epidemic and longstanding health inequities to exacerbate the disproportionate harms experienced by persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) who self-identify as from racial and ethnic minority groups. Disrupted access to harm reduction services (e.g., naloxone, sterile syringes, recovery support) is one pathway whereby COVID-19 might exacerbate health disparities. We tested the hypothesis that persons receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) who self-identify as from racial/ethnic minority groups would experience more disruptions in access to harm reduction services than persons identifying as non-Hispanic White, even when controlling for severity of opioid use and sociodemographics (e.g., education, income, biological sex, age). METHODS: Analyses used data from a cluster randomized trial that had enrolled 188 patients, all of whom had provided baseline data on sociodemographics and severity of opioid use, across eight opioid treatment programs. Data collectors re-contacted participants between May and June 2020 and 133 (71% response rate) agreed to complete a survey about access to harm reduction services. RESULTS: Twenty-six respondents (20%) identified as from racial/ethnic minority groups (predominantly Black, Hispanic, and/or biracial). Between 7% and 27% of respondents reported disrupted access to harm reduction services. Logistic regressions indicated that persons identifying as from racial/ethnic minority groups were 8-10 times more likely than persons identifying as non-Hispanic White to report reduced access to naloxone and sterile syringes (p < .01), even when accounting for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: This report concludes with a discussion of potential outreach strategies and policies to advance more equitable access to essential harm reduction services.

COVID-19 in Women's health: Pre-operative gynaecological assessment and shared decision making.

The National Health Service (NHS) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about rapid and innovative changes to surgical care in gynaecology, shared decision making around operative procedures and pre-operative gynaecological pathways. Short-term changes are linked to the redeployment of resources away from elective gynaecology and long-term changes relate to accelerating the streamlining of treatments, telemedicine and education in patient self-management. The speed and recency of the response does not yet permit the creation of a large evidence base for effective and acceptable interventions, apart from anecdotal observations of 'what works well'' good practice and guidance from the Royal Colleges and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare access among patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered treatment delivery for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) dispensing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We aimed to identify patterns of substance use among MOUD patients and examine whether COVID-19-related impacts on access to healthcare varied across subgroups. METHODS: This analysis was embedded within a type 3 hybrid trial that enrolled patients across eight OTPs at the start of the pandemic. Enrolled patients reported on past-30 day use of multiple substances during their baseline assessment. Participants re-contacted in May-July 2020 completed a survey about COVID-19-related impacts on various life domains. Using latent class analysis we identified patient subgroups, and then examined group differences on a set of negative and positive COVID-19 impacts related to healthcare access. RESULTS: Of the 188 trial participants, 135 (72 %) completed the survey. Latent class analysis identified three MOUD patient subgroups: minimal use (class probability: 0.25); opioid use (class probability: 0.34); and polysubstance use (class probability: 0.41). Compared to the minimal use group, the polysubstance use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing sterile needles, naloxone, and preferred substance. The opioid use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing their preferred substance. There were no significant group differences related to accessing routine or specialized healthcare or medication; or paying attention to their health. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, many MOUD patients reported challenges accessing care, particularly harm reduction services for patients with polysubstance use. Additional efforts, like providing wraparound support, may be necessary to serve the needs of MOUD patients.