Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

Currently, the CDC U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (USMEC) rate CHCs as category 4 (unacceptable health risk) for migraine with aura, versus category 2 for migraine without aura; ACOG similarly recommends avoiding estrogen-containing contraception in migraine with aura. But, recent data published in August 2026 from the UK seems to show no increased risk with “modern”/low-dose combination birth control pills when compared to progesterone only options. Is the CDC contraindication out outdated? Not quite. Listen in for details.
1. https://www.podcastrepublic.net/podcast/1412385746Ihara K, et al. Estrogen exposure from modern contraceptives and vascular risk in women with migraine: A nationwide electronic medical record database study. Cephalalgia. 2025 Dec;45(12):3331024251404924. doi: 10.1177/03331024251404924. Epub 2025 Dec 17.
2. Gibbs LR, Fox MP, Aparicio HJ, Jick S. Combined Oral Contraceptives and Stroke Risk in Individuals With Migraine With Aura. Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Aug 1;148(2):160-170. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000006306. Epub 2026 May 7.

A growing body of research reveals the link between STIs andthe pathogens that cause most cases of vaginitis. Over 90% of vaginitis cases result from BV, yeast, or trich- alone or in combination. But, a recent 2024 study from Schwebke et al., in the J Clinical Microbiology, found that about 1 in 5 women who presented with symptoms of vaginitis also had at least one STI…a good reminder to not just stop at a VP3 or wet mount. Additionally, women who tested positive for BV had an STI infection rate double the rate found in womenwho tested negative for BV. In fact, T. vaginalis (TV) and Mycoplasma genitalium (M. gen) infections were significantly associated with BV. We generally trust our tests- don’t we? Negative VP3 for trich- all clear right? Not quite. In this episode, we will highlight our real case where the VP3 testconfirmed BV as the only issue in our symptomatic pregnant patient, yet the cervical NAAT collected at the same time returned positive for Trichomoniasis. Why the discrepancy? It actually is very common- and that may be a care gap.Listen in for details.
1.     Schwebke JR, Nyirjesy P, Dsouza M, et al.Vaginitis and risk of sexually transmitted infections: Results from a multi-center U.S. clinical study using STI nucleic acid amplification testing. J Clin Microbiol. 2024;62(9):e0081624.
2.      Peebles, K., Velloza, J., Balkus, J. E.,McClelland, R. S. & Barnabas, R. V. High global burden and costs of bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex. Trans. Dis. 46, 304–311 (2019).
3.     Paladine HL and Desai UA. Vaginitis: Diagnosisand treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2018;97(5):321-329.

An important clinical advantage of cfDNA screening for autosomal recessive conditions is its ability to provide meaningful fetal risk assessment in general-risk pregnancies at an early gestational age, even when partner carrier testing is unavailable. But is this reflex cell-free DNA approach reliable. In this episode, we will review NEW DATA (Oct 2026) from a prospective, multi-site study whose goal was to “evaluate the clinical performance of cell- free DNA (cfDNA) screening as a primary screening tool for autosomal recessive conditions in a large, prospective, general-risk population”. We will review the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of this (UNITY) approach.
1. A Prospective, Multi-Site Study of Performance of Cell-Free DNA Testing for Recessive Conditions in a Large, General-Risk Pregnancy Population. Obstet Gynecol (OCT) 2026;148:509–15
2. SMFM STATEMENT Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Statement: Evaluation and management of cell-free DNA screening for fetal red cell antigen genotype in alloimmunized and non-alloimmunized pregnancies. Pregnancy; June 2026

Welcome back to the show, everyone! Today,we are diving deep into one of the most effective, set-it-and-forget-it contraceptive options available: the Nexplanon implant. With a failure rate of about 0.05%, it is apowerhouse of birth control. You pop it just under the skin of the inner upper arm, and for up to five years, you are covered. Standard removal is usually a quick, straightforward, in-office visit. But what happens when you go to feel for the implant... and it’s not palpable? That single scenario can beincredibly anxiety-provoking—both for the patient lying othe table and for the clinician trying to locate it. Did it migrate? Is it sitting deeper in the fascia or muscle? Or was it ever actually inserted in the first place? When an implant isn’t palpable, standard removal techniques won't cut it. What are theexact next steps for clinical localization? Which imaging modalities should you order first—high-resolution ultrasound, X-ray, or MRI? And here is a twist you might not expect: what on earth does a vasectomy procedure have to do withremoving a difficult Nexplanon implant? Believe it or not, specialized removal techniques borrowing instruments from vasectomies are changing the game for deep implant retrievals! In today’s episode, we break down the brand-newclinical guidance from the Society of Family Planning, authored by Dr. Paula Castaño et al. and published in the journal Contraception. We’ll walk through the step-by-step algorithms for localization, safety protocols, and advanced removal techniques so you can handle non-palpable implants with complete confidence. Grab your coffee, hit subscribe, and let’s dive into the details!
1.     Castaño PM, Creinin MD, Eisenberg DL, et al.Society of Family Planning Committee Statement: Management and removal of deep and nonpalpable contraceptive implants. Contraception. Published 2026.doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2026.111567
2.     Society of Family Planning. News release: TheSociety releases clinical guidance addressing contraceptive implant removal, expands pathways to timely care. Published August 31, 2026. Accessed September 10, 2026. https://societyfp.org/about/society-statements/news-release-the-society-releases-clinical-guidance-addressing-contraceptive-implant-removal-expands-pathways-to-timely-care/

Picture this common, late-gestation conundrum: You’re reviewing a 34-week sono. The mid-pregnancy 24-to-28-week glucose screen was completely normal. But now, the sonogram pops up with an estimated fetal weight of over 90%, or maybe a MVP (or AFI) that’s overtly elevated. The classic clinical dilemma hits: Do you order a repeat OGTT this late in the game? Is it actually worth poking the patient again, or are you just chasing shadows? Well, we now have new meta-analytic data. Today, we are reviewing fresh, high-yield data hot off the press from the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (OCT 2026). We’re breaking down this systematic review evaluating late-onset GDM- looking at precisely who may yield a positive diagnosis on a repeat third-trimester test, why LGA and polyhydramnios are not created equal when deciding to re-screen, and what these late numbers mean for neonatal hypoglycemia and cesarean delivery rates. AND, although these insights are helpful- some questions remain. Let’s jump in!
1. Dominsky O, Berkovitz-Shperling R, Rosenberg-Fridman M .Late-onset diagnosis of gestational diabetes after normal mid-pregnancy screening in women with large for gestational age or polyhydramnios: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2026; 235, 789-799