Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal.

PURPOSE: To investigate the abortion views and reproductive concerns of current in vitro fertilization patients after the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion access. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of English-speaking patients undergoing in vitro fertilization from January to November 2022 at a large academic institution in a state with restricted abortion care. Participants completed a 43-question electronic survey which measured feelings about abortion, future fertility treatments, and embryo disposition both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Of 543 eligible patients, 267 (49%) consented to participate when called and were sent the survey. Of those, 180 (67%) completed it, resulting in a total completion rate of 33%. The majority believe abortion should be legal in the case of birth defects (90.8%) or rape or incest (90.3%). A significant proportion (91.4%) expressed concerns about abortion being illegal in the state that they receive infertility care. They reported some concern about making embryos (89.6%), controlling what happens to them (95.4%), and discarding them (94.4%). Patients wrote about their concerns with pursuing fertility treatments, fear of not having access to needed medical care, and the desire to remain close to states with less restrictive abortion laws. CONCLUSIONS: The evolving political landscape surrounding access to reproductive care has created significant concerns regarding legal regulation of these treatments and the disposition of embryos. By understanding patients' concerns, health care providers can more effectively advocate for the protection of fertility treatments and patients' autonomy in embryo disposition.

Disparities in Female Oncofertility Care in the United States: More Questions Than Answers.

As cancer therapies continue to improve, the survival rates of adolescent and young adult patients have increased. Consequently, considering patient quality of life after cancer, including family building, has become an essential aspect of establishing a treatment plan. However, the gonadotoxic nature of many chemotherapeutic agents limits the option of using one's own gamete for family building. In recent years, significant advancements have been made in oncofertility, particularly vitrification of oocytes. Unfortunately, as with many areas of medicine, health disparities limit those that can access and utilize fertility preservation prior to cancer treatment. This review aims to shed light on existing disparities in oncofertility for female patients, to offer recommendations to enhance education, access, and advocacy, as well as identify potential areas for future research.

Where Have All the Emergencies Gone? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Obstetric and Gynecologic Procedures and Consults at a New York City Hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical volume and emergency department (ED) consults across obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) services at a New York City hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center in New York City. PATIENTS: Women undergoing OB-GYN ED consults or surgeries between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: March 16 institutional moratorium on elective surgeries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The volume and types of surgeries and ED consults were compared before and after the COVID-19 moratorium. During the pandemic, the average weekly volume of ED consults and gynecology (GYN) surgeries decreased, whereas obstetric (OB) surgeries remained stable. The proportions of OB-GYN ED consults, GYN surgeries, and OB surgeries relative to all ED consults, all surgeries, and all labor and delivery patients were 1.87%, 13.8%, 54.6% in the pre-COVID-19 time frame (February 1-March 15) vs 1.53%, 21.3%, 79.7% in the COVID-19 time frame (March 16-April 15), representing no significant difference in proportions of OB-GYN ED consults (p = .464) and GYN surgeries (p = .310) before and during COVID-19, with a proportionate increase in OB surgeries (p <.002). The distribution of GYN surgical case types changed significantly during the pandemic with higher proportions of emergent surgeries for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and concern for cancer (p <.001). Alternatively, the OB surgery distribution of case types remained relatively constant. CONCLUSION: This study highlights how the pandemic has affected the ways that patients in OB-GYN access and receive care. Institutional policies suspending elective surgeries during the pandemic decreased GYN surgical volume and affected the types of cases performed. This decrease was not appreciated for OB surgical volume, reflecting the nonelective and time-sensitive nature of obstetric care. A decrease in ED consults was noted during the pandemic begging the question "Where have all the emergencies gone?" Although the moratorium on elective procedures was necessary, "elective" GYN surgeries remain medically indicated to address symptoms such as pain and bleeding and to prevent serious medical sequelae such as severe anemia requiring transfusion. As we continue to battle COVID-19, we must not lose sight of those patients whose care has been deferred.

Gender inequality in leadership and academic rank in academic reproductive endocrinology programs.

PURPOSE: To identify gender differences in leadership and academic rank within academic reproductive endocrinology (REI) programs with fellowships in the USA. METHODS: Official institutional websites of the 2017-2018 American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG)-accredited reproductive endocrinology fellowship programs were reviewed, and gender representation at each leadership position and academic rank (Division and Fellowship Director and Full, Associate, and Assistant Professor) was recorded. Univariate comparisons were performed using Chi-square tests, with significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Among 49 ABOG-accredited reproductive endocrinology programs, 263 faculty were identified, 129 (49.0%) male and 134 (51.0%) female. Division directors were 69.3% male and 30.7% female (p = 0.006). Similarly, fellowship directors were 65.3% male and 34.6% female (p = 0.03). Full professors (n = 101) were more frequently male (70.3% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in gender among associate professors (n = 60, 51.7% male vs. 48.3% female, p = 0.79), while significantly more assistant professors were female than male (n = 102, 73.6% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While a majority of residents in obstetrics and gynecology and half of reproductive endocrinology academic faculty are female, women are still underrepresented among leadership positions and full professors in academic reproductive endocrinology programs with fellowship programs.

Abnormal B cell memory subsets dominate HIV-specific responses in infected individuals.

Recently, several neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies have been isolated from memory B cells of HIV-infected individuals. Despite extensive evidence of B cell dysfunction in HIV disease, little is known about the cells from which these rare HIV-specific antibodies originate. Accordingly, we used HIV envelope gp140 and CD4 or coreceptor (CoR) binding site (bs) mutant probes to evaluate HIV-specific responses in peripheral blood B cells of HIV-infected individuals at various stages of infection. In contrast to non-HIV responses, HIV-specific responses against gp140 were enriched within abnormal B cells, namely activated and exhausted memory subsets, which are largely absent in the blood of uninfected individuals. Responses against the CoRbs, which is a poorly neutralizing epitope, arose early, whereas those against the well-characterized neutralizing epitope CD4bs were delayed and infrequent. Enrichment of the HIV-specific response within resting memory B cells, the predominant subset in uninfected individuals, did occur in certain infected individuals who maintained low levels of plasma viremia and immune activation with or without antiretroviral therapy. The distribution of HIV-specific responses among memory B cell subsets was corroborated by transcriptional analyses. Taken together, our findings provide valuable insight into virus-specific B cell responses in HIV infection and demonstrate that memory B cell abnormalities may contribute to the ineffectiveness of the antibody response in infected individuals.