E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA

It is not surprising that a pregnant woman’s actions heavily influence her developing baby. Ob.gyns. advise patients to stop smoking or to stop using illicit drugs, and limit their alcohol consumption during pregnancy because we know that these substances can cause serious, even fatal, consequences for the fetus. Although we routinely provide nutrition information and guidelines on healthy weight gain in pregnancy, we may not stress the importance of healthy eating to the same degree as we may emphasize the need to eliminate tobacco use. But should we?

In 2011, a study by researchers at Yale University, the University of Texas, and Arizona State University suggested that food can have effects on the brain similar to those of addictive substances (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;68[8]:808-16). Using MRI, the investigators examined which areas of the brain became active in response to the consumption of a chocolate milkshake, and compared these results to brain scans of people addicted to opioids. The study enrolled 48 women who were lean to obese, based on body mass index. The researchers found that people who were obese had brain activity patterns in response to food that were similar to patterns that people with drug addiction had in response to opioids. Although the sample size was small, the investigators showed, in essence, that food is a “drug.”

Ob.gyns. working with patients who are overweight or obese typically encourage weight loss prior to pregnancy, or suggest limited weight gain during gestation, because obesity increases complications for both the pregnant mother and her unborn baby. If, as the 2011 study suggests, we were to think of food addiction as we do any other drug addiction – tobacco, opioids, alcohol – that should be curbed out of concern for the developing baby, ob.gyns. might tell our patients to reduce or completely eliminate their “trans-fat food habit” before and during pregnancy.

Importantly, a mother’s nutrition, or lack thereof, may exert harmful effects on her child’s long-term health. This idea was intimated decades ago when Dr. David Barker proposed that a person’s future risk for disease began during pregnancy. Exactly how this type of early programming may occur remains to be determined. Therefore, this month we examine the fetal origins of obesity, and have invited Dr. Michael G. Ross, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and Mina Desai, Ph.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss this important topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

It is not surprising that a pregnant woman’s actions heavily influence her developing baby. Ob.gyns. advise patients to stop smoking or to stop using illicit drugs, and limit their alcohol consumption during pregnancy because we know that these substances can cause serious, even fatal, consequences for the fetus. Although we routinely provide nutrition information and guidelines on healthy weight gain in pregnancy, we may not stress the importance of healthy eating to the same degree as we may emphasize the need to eliminate tobacco use. But should we?

In 2011, a study by researchers at Yale University, the University of Texas, and Arizona State University suggested that food can have effects on the brain similar to those of addictive substances (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;68[8]:808-16). Using MRI, the investigators examined which areas of the brain became active in response to the consumption of a chocolate milkshake, and compared these results to brain scans of people addicted to opioids. The study enrolled 48 women who were lean to obese, based on body mass index. The researchers found that people who were obese had brain activity patterns in response to food that were similar to patterns that people with drug addiction had in response to opioids. Although the sample size was small, the investigators showed, in essence, that food is a “drug.”

Ob.gyns. working with patients who are overweight or obese typically encourage weight loss prior to pregnancy, or suggest limited weight gain during gestation, because obesity increases complications for both the pregnant mother and her unborn baby. If, as the 2011 study suggests, we were to think of food addiction as we do any other drug addiction – tobacco, opioids, alcohol – that should be curbed out of concern for the developing baby, ob.gyns. might tell our patients to reduce or completely eliminate their “trans-fat food habit” before and during pregnancy.

Importantly, a mother’s nutrition, or lack thereof, may exert harmful effects on her child’s long-term health. This idea was intimated decades ago when Dr. David Barker proposed that a person’s future risk for disease began during pregnancy. Exactly how this type of early programming may occur remains to be determined. Therefore, this month we examine the fetal origins of obesity, and have invited Dr. Michael G. Ross, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and Mina Desai, Ph.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss this important topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

It is not surprising that a pregnant woman’s actions heavily influence her developing baby. Ob.gyns. advise patients to stop smoking or to stop using illicit drugs, and limit their alcohol consumption during pregnancy because we know that these substances can cause serious, even fatal, consequences for the fetus. Although we routinely provide nutrition information and guidelines on healthy weight gain in pregnancy, we may not stress the importance of healthy eating to the same degree as we may emphasize the need to eliminate tobacco use. But should we?

In 2011, a study by researchers at Yale University, the University of Texas, and Arizona State University suggested that food can have effects on the brain similar to those of addictive substances (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;68[8]:808-16). Using MRI, the investigators examined which areas of the brain became active in response to the consumption of a chocolate milkshake, and compared these results to brain scans of people addicted to opioids. The study enrolled 48 women who were lean to obese, based on body mass index. The researchers found that people who were obese had brain activity patterns in response to food that were similar to patterns that people with drug addiction had in response to opioids. Although the sample size was small, the investigators showed, in essence, that food is a “drug.”

Ob.gyns. working with patients who are overweight or obese typically encourage weight loss prior to pregnancy, or suggest limited weight gain during gestation, because obesity increases complications for both the pregnant mother and her unborn baby. If, as the 2011 study suggests, we were to think of food addiction as we do any other drug addiction – tobacco, opioids, alcohol – that should be curbed out of concern for the developing baby, ob.gyns. might tell our patients to reduce or completely eliminate their “trans-fat food habit” before and during pregnancy.

Importantly, a mother’s nutrition, or lack thereof, may exert harmful effects on her child’s long-term health. This idea was intimated decades ago when Dr. David Barker proposed that a person’s future risk for disease began during pregnancy. Exactly how this type of early programming may occur remains to be determined. Therefore, this month we examine the fetal origins of obesity, and have invited Dr. Michael G. Ross, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and Mina Desai, Ph.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss this important topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Over the last 50 years, we have witnessed some incredible advancements that have vastly improved maternal and fetal outcomes, even in the face of the most complex obstetrical dilemmas. As our practice and the research continues to evolve, it is increasingly important that we carefully review our practice standards to ensure that every woman and her baby receives the most up-to-date medical care.

This month’s Master Class highlights a critical area of obstetrics where the convergence of technology, clinical observation, and research stimulated a change in practice guidelines: the use of the labor curve to monitor normal versus abnormal labor. Until quite recently, ob.gyns. had based labor criteria on the “Friedman Curve,” first established in the mid-1950s, and supported by other smaller and less comprehensive studies. This work was adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For more than half a century, we used these parameters to determine if a woman had entered active-phase arrest, and to make the very important decision of whether to perform a cesarean section. However, work in the early 2000s strongly suggested that the old criteria no longer applied to the full course of labor in contemporary patients (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187[4]:824-8). A 2010 comprehensive study showed that we needed to consider a new approach to labor management (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203[4]:326.e1-326.e10).

It may seem incredible that it took such a long time to update our thinking about what constitutes normal versus abnormal labor progression. However, we must keep in mind that many studies supported the original labor curve, and advanced tools to assess fetal health during labor were just being developed. The first commercially available fetal heart rate monitor would not be produced until 1968, and debates about the utility of these devices would continue into the early 1990s.

Additionally, our patient population has changed. As we have discussed in previous columns, the incidence and severity of other chronic conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, has increased significantly and deeply impacted labor progression.

Just as technology has advanced and our patients’ needs have changed, so, too, must our practice standards. We have invited Dr. Alison G. Cahill, associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to discuss the importance and implications of the new labor curve.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Over the last 50 years, we have witnessed some incredible advancements that have vastly improved maternal and fetal outcomes, even in the face of the most complex obstetrical dilemmas. As our practice and the research continues to evolve, it is increasingly important that we carefully review our practice standards to ensure that every woman and her baby receives the most up-to-date medical care.

This month’s Master Class highlights a critical area of obstetrics where the convergence of technology, clinical observation, and research stimulated a change in practice guidelines: the use of the labor curve to monitor normal versus abnormal labor. Until quite recently, ob.gyns. had based labor criteria on the “Friedman Curve,” first established in the mid-1950s, and supported by other smaller and less comprehensive studies. This work was adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For more than half a century, we used these parameters to determine if a woman had entered active-phase arrest, and to make the very important decision of whether to perform a cesarean section. However, work in the early 2000s strongly suggested that the old criteria no longer applied to the full course of labor in contemporary patients (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187[4]:824-8). A 2010 comprehensive study showed that we needed to consider a new approach to labor management (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203[4]:326.e1-326.e10).

It may seem incredible that it took such a long time to update our thinking about what constitutes normal versus abnormal labor progression. However, we must keep in mind that many studies supported the original labor curve, and advanced tools to assess fetal health during labor were just being developed. The first commercially available fetal heart rate monitor would not be produced until 1968, and debates about the utility of these devices would continue into the early 1990s.

Additionally, our patient population has changed. As we have discussed in previous columns, the incidence and severity of other chronic conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, has increased significantly and deeply impacted labor progression.

Just as technology has advanced and our patients’ needs have changed, so, too, must our practice standards. We have invited Dr. Alison G. Cahill, associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to discuss the importance and implications of the new labor curve.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Over the last 50 years, we have witnessed some incredible advancements that have vastly improved maternal and fetal outcomes, even in the face of the most complex obstetrical dilemmas. As our practice and the research continues to evolve, it is increasingly important that we carefully review our practice standards to ensure that every woman and her baby receives the most up-to-date medical care.

This month’s Master Class highlights a critical area of obstetrics where the convergence of technology, clinical observation, and research stimulated a change in practice guidelines: the use of the labor curve to monitor normal versus abnormal labor. Until quite recently, ob.gyns. had based labor criteria on the “Friedman Curve,” first established in the mid-1950s, and supported by other smaller and less comprehensive studies. This work was adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For more than half a century, we used these parameters to determine if a woman had entered active-phase arrest, and to make the very important decision of whether to perform a cesarean section. However, work in the early 2000s strongly suggested that the old criteria no longer applied to the full course of labor in contemporary patients (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187[4]:824-8). A 2010 comprehensive study showed that we needed to consider a new approach to labor management (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203[4]:326.e1-326.e10).

It may seem incredible that it took such a long time to update our thinking about what constitutes normal versus abnormal labor progression. However, we must keep in mind that many studies supported the original labor curve, and advanced tools to assess fetal health during labor were just being developed. The first commercially available fetal heart rate monitor would not be produced until 1968, and debates about the utility of these devices would continue into the early 1990s.

Additionally, our patient population has changed. As we have discussed in previous columns, the incidence and severity of other chronic conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, has increased significantly and deeply impacted labor progression.

Just as technology has advanced and our patients’ needs have changed, so, too, must our practice standards. We have invited Dr. Alison G. Cahill, associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to discuss the importance and implications of the new labor curve.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

When a couple learns that “they are pregnant,” it is often one of the most joyous moments in their lives. However, despite the modern prenatal care available to women in the United States, pregnancy loss remains a real concern. Miscarriage is estimated to occur in 15%-20% of pregnancies; recurrent pregnancy loss in about 1%-2% of pregnancies; and stillbirth in as many as 1% of pregnancies. The causes of pregnancy loss can range from those we can diagnose, such as genetic factors, anatomic complications, and thrombophilia, to those that elude us completely.

In December 2015, investigators from Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm published a study indicating that women who gained weight between their first and second pregnancies, but who were a healthy weight prior to their first pregnancy, had an increased risk of experiencing a stillbirth (30%-50%), or having an infant who died within the first year (27%-60%) (Lancet 2015. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00990-3). We have devoted a number of Master Class columns to the link between obesity and pregnancy complications, and this study further reinforces the influence of a healthy weight on pregnancy outcomes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, evidence has suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin, aspirin, or vitamin supplements, in combination with appropriate surveillance and management, may reduce risk of pregnancy loss. However, more work is needed to fully understand why fetal death occurs if we are to better equip ourselves, and our patients, with all the information necessary to prevent loss from happening.

For this reason, we have invited Dr. Uma M. Reddy of the Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, to address one of the most devastating types of pregnancy losses: stillbirth. As a program scientist for large research studies, such as the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network, Dr. Reddy’s unique perspective will add greatly to our understanding of pregnancy loss.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column.

When a couple learns that “they are pregnant,” it is often one of the most joyous moments in their lives. However, despite the modern prenatal care available to women in the United States, pregnancy loss remains a real concern. Miscarriage is estimated to occur in 15%-20% of pregnancies; recurrent pregnancy loss in about 1%-2% of pregnancies; and stillbirth in as many as 1% of pregnancies. The causes of pregnancy loss can range from those we can diagnose, such as genetic factors, anatomic complications, and thrombophilia, to those that elude us completely.

In December 2015, investigators from Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm published a study indicating that women who gained weight between their first and second pregnancies, but who were a healthy weight prior to their first pregnancy, had an increased risk of experiencing a stillbirth (30%-50%), or having an infant who died within the first year (27%-60%) (Lancet 2015. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00990-3). We have devoted a number of Master Class columns to the link between obesity and pregnancy complications, and this study further reinforces the influence of a healthy weight on pregnancy outcomes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, evidence has suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin, aspirin, or vitamin supplements, in combination with appropriate surveillance and management, may reduce risk of pregnancy loss. However, more work is needed to fully understand why fetal death occurs if we are to better equip ourselves, and our patients, with all the information necessary to prevent loss from happening.

For this reason, we have invited Dr. Uma M. Reddy of the Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, to address one of the most devastating types of pregnancy losses: stillbirth. As a program scientist for large research studies, such as the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network, Dr. Reddy’s unique perspective will add greatly to our understanding of pregnancy loss.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column.

When a couple learns that “they are pregnant,” it is often one of the most joyous moments in their lives. However, despite the modern prenatal care available to women in the United States, pregnancy loss remains a real concern. Miscarriage is estimated to occur in 15%-20% of pregnancies; recurrent pregnancy loss in about 1%-2% of pregnancies; and stillbirth in as many as 1% of pregnancies. The causes of pregnancy loss can range from those we can diagnose, such as genetic factors, anatomic complications, and thrombophilia, to those that elude us completely.

In December 2015, investigators from Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm published a study indicating that women who gained weight between their first and second pregnancies, but who were a healthy weight prior to their first pregnancy, had an increased risk of experiencing a stillbirth (30%-50%), or having an infant who died within the first year (27%-60%) (Lancet 2015. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00990-3). We have devoted a number of Master Class columns to the link between obesity and pregnancy complications, and this study further reinforces the influence of a healthy weight on pregnancy outcomes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, evidence has suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin, aspirin, or vitamin supplements, in combination with appropriate surveillance and management, may reduce risk of pregnancy loss. However, more work is needed to fully understand why fetal death occurs if we are to better equip ourselves, and our patients, with all the information necessary to prevent loss from happening.

For this reason, we have invited Dr. Uma M. Reddy of the Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, to address one of the most devastating types of pregnancy losses: stillbirth. As a program scientist for large research studies, such as the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network, Dr. Reddy’s unique perspective will add greatly to our understanding of pregnancy loss.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column.

In December 2014, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about a young mother who wanted a vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) for her second child. After her hospital stopped offering VBACs, the woman had to find another place to deliver. She did have a successful VBAC, but her story is not unique – many women may not receive adequate consultations about or provider support for VBAC as a delivery option.

According to the article, a lack of clinical support was the reason the hospital discontinued VBACs. Although the hospital’s decision may have frustrated the mother, this ensured that she would not be promised a birthing option that the hospital could not deliver – in all senses of this word. Successful VBAC requires proper patient selection, appropriate consent and adequate provisions in case of emergencies.

Not every hospital has made such a choice. Based on studies of a trial of labor after cesarean, conducted after the 1960s, the rate of VBACs increased. As VBACs became more common, the approach to the procedure became more relaxed. VBACs went from only being performed in tertiary care hospitals with appropriate support for emergencies, to community hospitals with no backup. Patient selection became less rigorous, and the rate of complications went up, which, in turn, caused the number of associated legal claims to rise. Hospitals started discouraging VBACs, and ob.gyns. no longer counseled their patients about this option. The VBAC rate decreased, and the C-section rate increased.

Today, many women want to pursue a trial of labor after cesarean. Data from large clinical studies have demonstrated the safety and success of VBAC with proper care. Because of the storied history and a revival of interest in VBACs, we have invited Dr. Mark Landon, the Richard L. Meiling Professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Ohio State University, and the lead on one of the recent seminal VBAC studies, to address this topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

In December 2014, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about a young mother who wanted a vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) for her second child. After her hospital stopped offering VBACs, the woman had to find another place to deliver. She did have a successful VBAC, but her story is not unique – many women may not receive adequate consultations about or provider support for VBAC as a delivery option.

According to the article, a lack of clinical support was the reason the hospital discontinued VBACs. Although the hospital’s decision may have frustrated the mother, this ensured that she would not be promised a birthing option that the hospital could not deliver – in all senses of this word. Successful VBAC requires proper patient selection, appropriate consent and adequate provisions in case of emergencies.

Not every hospital has made such a choice. Based on studies of a trial of labor after cesarean, conducted after the 1960s, the rate of VBACs increased. As VBACs became more common, the approach to the procedure became more relaxed. VBACs went from only being performed in tertiary care hospitals with appropriate support for emergencies, to community hospitals with no backup. Patient selection became less rigorous, and the rate of complications went up, which, in turn, caused the number of associated legal claims to rise. Hospitals started discouraging VBACs, and ob.gyns. no longer counseled their patients about this option. The VBAC rate decreased, and the C-section rate increased.

Today, many women want to pursue a trial of labor after cesarean. Data from large clinical studies have demonstrated the safety and success of VBAC with proper care. Because of the storied history and a revival of interest in VBACs, we have invited Dr. Mark Landon, the Richard L. Meiling Professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Ohio State University, and the lead on one of the recent seminal VBAC studies, to address this topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

In December 2014, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about a young mother who wanted a vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) for her second child. After her hospital stopped offering VBACs, the woman had to find another place to deliver. She did have a successful VBAC, but her story is not unique – many women may not receive adequate consultations about or provider support for VBAC as a delivery option.

According to the article, a lack of clinical support was the reason the hospital discontinued VBACs. Although the hospital’s decision may have frustrated the mother, this ensured that she would not be promised a birthing option that the hospital could not deliver – in all senses of this word. Successful VBAC requires proper patient selection, appropriate consent and adequate provisions in case of emergencies.

Not every hospital has made such a choice. Based on studies of a trial of labor after cesarean, conducted after the 1960s, the rate of VBACs increased. As VBACs became more common, the approach to the procedure became more relaxed. VBACs went from only being performed in tertiary care hospitals with appropriate support for emergencies, to community hospitals with no backup. Patient selection became less rigorous, and the rate of complications went up, which, in turn, caused the number of associated legal claims to rise. Hospitals started discouraging VBACs, and ob.gyns. no longer counseled their patients about this option. The VBAC rate decreased, and the C-section rate increased.

Today, many women want to pursue a trial of labor after cesarean. Data from large clinical studies have demonstrated the safety and success of VBAC with proper care. Because of the storied history and a revival of interest in VBACs, we have invited Dr. Mark Landon, the Richard L. Meiling Professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Ohio State University, and the lead on one of the recent seminal VBAC studies, to address this topic.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece reported having no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

As ob.gyns., we often focus on optimizing our patients’ reproductive health. Research has shown, however, that the condition of a woman’s health prior to conception can be just as – if not more – important to her pregnancy and her lifelong well-being. For example, we have established that women who take the daily recommended dose of folic acid (400 mcg), even outside of pregnancy, have a reduced risk for neural tube defects in their infants.

Last year, we devoted a series of Master Class columns to the crucial need to properly manage maternal weight gain and blood sugar levels before, during, and after gestation to improve pregnancy outcomes. We also have seen that intensive glycemic and weight control in women can reduce their risk of fetal and maternal complications.

However, the leading causes of morbidity and mortality remain cardiovascular diseases, both in the developing and developed world. One of the key contributors to poor heart and vascular health is high cholesterol. Although the body needs cholesterol, just as it needs sugar, excess lipids in the blood can lead to infarction and stroke.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the desirable total cholesterol levels, including low- and high-density lipids and triglycerides, for men and nonpregnant women fall below 200 mg/dL. What remain less clear are the desired lipid levels for pregnant women.

We have known for decades that cholesterol concentrations increase during pregnancy, possibly by as much as 50%. We do not, however, have a firm understanding of what may constitute normally higher lipid concentrations and what may signal risk to the health of the baby or mother. Additionally, while we may run a lipid panel when we order a blood test, ob.gyns. do not routinely monitor a women’s cholesterol.

Since excess lipids, obesity, and heart disease often occur in the same patient and have become increasingly prevalent in our society, it may be time to reexamine any correlations between maternal lipid levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

To comment on this reemerging area, we invited Dr. Arnon Wiznitzer, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Helen Schneider Hospital for Women and deputy director of the Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. Dr. Wiznitzer’s extensive experience working with women who have diabetes in pregnancy led him to examine other comorbidities, including lipids, which might confound good pregnancy outcomes.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

As ob.gyns., we often focus on optimizing our patients’ reproductive health. Research has shown, however, that the condition of a woman’s health prior to conception can be just as – if not more – important to her pregnancy and her lifelong well-being. For example, we have established that women who take the daily recommended dose of folic acid (400 mcg), even outside of pregnancy, have a reduced risk for neural tube defects in their infants.

Last year, we devoted a series of Master Class columns to the crucial need to properly manage maternal weight gain and blood sugar levels before, during, and after gestation to improve pregnancy outcomes. We also have seen that intensive glycemic and weight control in women can reduce their risk of fetal and maternal complications.

However, the leading causes of morbidity and mortality remain cardiovascular diseases, both in the developing and developed world. One of the key contributors to poor heart and vascular health is high cholesterol. Although the body needs cholesterol, just as it needs sugar, excess lipids in the blood can lead to infarction and stroke.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the desirable total cholesterol levels, including low- and high-density lipids and triglycerides, for men and nonpregnant women fall below 200 mg/dL. What remain less clear are the desired lipid levels for pregnant women.

We have known for decades that cholesterol concentrations increase during pregnancy, possibly by as much as 50%. We do not, however, have a firm understanding of what may constitute normally higher lipid concentrations and what may signal risk to the health of the baby or mother. Additionally, while we may run a lipid panel when we order a blood test, ob.gyns. do not routinely monitor a women’s cholesterol.

Since excess lipids, obesity, and heart disease often occur in the same patient and have become increasingly prevalent in our society, it may be time to reexamine any correlations between maternal lipid levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

To comment on this reemerging area, we invited Dr. Arnon Wiznitzer, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Helen Schneider Hospital for Women and deputy director of the Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. Dr. Wiznitzer’s extensive experience working with women who have diabetes in pregnancy led him to examine other comorbidities, including lipids, which might confound good pregnancy outcomes.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

As ob.gyns., we often focus on optimizing our patients’ reproductive health. Research has shown, however, that the condition of a woman’s health prior to conception can be just as – if not more – important to her pregnancy and her lifelong well-being. For example, we have established that women who take the daily recommended dose of folic acid (400 mcg), even outside of pregnancy, have a reduced risk for neural tube defects in their infants.

Last year, we devoted a series of Master Class columns to the crucial need to properly manage maternal weight gain and blood sugar levels before, during, and after gestation to improve pregnancy outcomes. We also have seen that intensive glycemic and weight control in women can reduce their risk of fetal and maternal complications.

However, the leading causes of morbidity and mortality remain cardiovascular diseases, both in the developing and developed world. One of the key contributors to poor heart and vascular health is high cholesterol. Although the body needs cholesterol, just as it needs sugar, excess lipids in the blood can lead to infarction and stroke.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the desirable total cholesterol levels, including low- and high-density lipids and triglycerides, for men and nonpregnant women fall below 200 mg/dL. What remain less clear are the desired lipid levels for pregnant women.

We have known for decades that cholesterol concentrations increase during pregnancy, possibly by as much as 50%. We do not, however, have a firm understanding of what may constitute normally higher lipid concentrations and what may signal risk to the health of the baby or mother. Additionally, while we may run a lipid panel when we order a blood test, ob.gyns. do not routinely monitor a women’s cholesterol.

Since excess lipids, obesity, and heart disease often occur in the same patient and have become increasingly prevalent in our society, it may be time to reexamine any correlations between maternal lipid levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

To comment on this reemerging area, we invited Dr. Arnon Wiznitzer, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Helen Schneider Hospital for Women and deputy director of the Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. Dr. Wiznitzer’s extensive experience working with women who have diabetes in pregnancy led him to examine other comorbidities, including lipids, which might confound good pregnancy outcomes.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

It’s hard to believe that it was 30 years ago that HIV was discovered as the cause of AIDS by Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Luc Montagnier. Since then, the medical community has focused on preventing and eradicating the virus and its transmission. Despite the advent of highly efficacious antiretroviral therapy, and education efforts to prevent transmission, the disease continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality.

Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have indicated that screening and prevention efforts led to a decline in perinatally acquired HIV and AIDS by 80% and 93%, respectively. However, we still have far to go.

The CDC estimated that in 2010 more than 1 million people over age 13 were living with HIV, and approximately 50,000 new cases of HIV occur each year in the United States.

President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States, released in 2010, set ambitious goals for eradicating the disease in our country. We can only hope to achieve the President’s aims if the fight against the disease is taken up by all health care professionals, on multiple fronts, and throughout the many stages of a patient’s health.

In a 2011 Master Class, we addressed the importance of ob.gyns. testing nonpregnant women for HIV, as well as employing HIV prevention strategies to keep our female patients healthy, and prevent potential mother-to-baby transmission of the virus. Although transmission has decreased significantly, helping patients follow their treatment regimens remains a major barrier to eradicating the disease.

Ob.gyns. may be the only physicians who many women see throughout their lives. Therefore, we have a unique opportunity to educate our patients about seeking appropriate care and the need for adhering to treatment regimens.

Our guest author this month is Dr. Robert R. Redfield Jr., a distinguished professor in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and associate director of the university’s Institute of Human Virology, with clinical and research programs in virtually all countries in the continent of Africa. Dr. Redfield will discuss the role that physicians can play in terms of linking patients to care as a means of treating those with HIV and reducing the burden of disease. Dr. Redfield’s expertise in the area of novel therapeutics for the treatment of the virus, and his clinical experience in treating patients, provides a unique perspective into this important public health issue.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

It’s hard to believe that it was 30 years ago that HIV was discovered as the cause of AIDS by Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Luc Montagnier. Since then, the medical community has focused on preventing and eradicating the virus and its transmission. Despite the advent of highly efficacious antiretroviral therapy, and education efforts to prevent transmission, the disease continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality.

Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have indicated that screening and prevention efforts led to a decline in perinatally acquired HIV and AIDS by 80% and 93%, respectively. However, we still have far to go.

The CDC estimated that in 2010 more than 1 million people over age 13 were living with HIV, and approximately 50,000 new cases of HIV occur each year in the United States.

President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States, released in 2010, set ambitious goals for eradicating the disease in our country. We can only hope to achieve the President’s aims if the fight against the disease is taken up by all health care professionals, on multiple fronts, and throughout the many stages of a patient’s health.

In a 2011 Master Class, we addressed the importance of ob.gyns. testing nonpregnant women for HIV, as well as employing HIV prevention strategies to keep our female patients healthy, and prevent potential mother-to-baby transmission of the virus. Although transmission has decreased significantly, helping patients follow their treatment regimens remains a major barrier to eradicating the disease.

Ob.gyns. may be the only physicians who many women see throughout their lives. Therefore, we have a unique opportunity to educate our patients about seeking appropriate care and the need for adhering to treatment regimens.

Our guest author this month is Dr. Robert R. Redfield Jr., a distinguished professor in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and associate director of the university’s Institute of Human Virology, with clinical and research programs in virtually all countries in the continent of Africa. Dr. Redfield will discuss the role that physicians can play in terms of linking patients to care as a means of treating those with HIV and reducing the burden of disease. Dr. Redfield’s expertise in the area of novel therapeutics for the treatment of the virus, and his clinical experience in treating patients, provides a unique perspective into this important public health issue.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

It’s hard to believe that it was 30 years ago that HIV was discovered as the cause of AIDS by Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Luc Montagnier. Since then, the medical community has focused on preventing and eradicating the virus and its transmission. Despite the advent of highly efficacious antiretroviral therapy, and education efforts to prevent transmission, the disease continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality.

Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have indicated that screening and prevention efforts led to a decline in perinatally acquired HIV and AIDS by 80% and 93%, respectively. However, we still have far to go.

The CDC estimated that in 2010 more than 1 million people over age 13 were living with HIV, and approximately 50,000 new cases of HIV occur each year in the United States.

President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States, released in 2010, set ambitious goals for eradicating the disease in our country. We can only hope to achieve the President’s aims if the fight against the disease is taken up by all health care professionals, on multiple fronts, and throughout the many stages of a patient’s health.

In a 2011 Master Class, we addressed the importance of ob.gyns. testing nonpregnant women for HIV, as well as employing HIV prevention strategies to keep our female patients healthy, and prevent potential mother-to-baby transmission of the virus. Although transmission has decreased significantly, helping patients follow their treatment regimens remains a major barrier to eradicating the disease.

Ob.gyns. may be the only physicians who many women see throughout their lives. Therefore, we have a unique opportunity to educate our patients about seeking appropriate care and the need for adhering to treatment regimens.

Our guest author this month is Dr. Robert R. Redfield Jr., a distinguished professor in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and associate director of the university’s Institute of Human Virology, with clinical and research programs in virtually all countries in the continent of Africa. Dr. Redfield will discuss the role that physicians can play in terms of linking patients to care as a means of treating those with HIV and reducing the burden of disease. Dr. Redfield’s expertise in the area of novel therapeutics for the treatment of the virus, and his clinical experience in treating patients, provides a unique perspective into this important public health issue.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Embryogenesis is an incredible phenomenon. It begins with fertilization and implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall, followed by development of the extraembryonic membrane which gives rise to the placenta, which is, literally, the lifeblood of the fetus. Although physicians often focus on the health of the placenta during pregnancy, the umbilical cord is an equally important organ.

The umbilical cord acts as a conduit through which metabolic products and biproducts, such as nutrients, antibodies, iron, and blood, pass bidirectionally between a mother and her baby. Many problems can arise if the cord becomes altered. For example, true umbilical cord knot is associated with small-for-gestational-age fetuses, premature birth, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and fetal death (Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2013;122:18-21). In addition, short or long cord length may lead to fetal heart rate anomalies and higher risk for birth asphyxia (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2012;62:520-5).

While the health of the umbilical cord during pregnancy closely correlates to successful outcomes, the cord’s functions conclude at birth. Physicians clamp the umbilical cord at parturition as a routine part of the delivery process. Many ob.gyns. may not even stop to think about cord clamping. To borrow the phrase from the old Nike slogan, they “just do it.”

However, exactly when physicians should clamp the umbilical cord remains a topic for debate. Should ob.gyns. clamp the cord immediately or shortly after birth? Proponents of immediate clamping might argue that waiting too long could cause an influx of placental* blood in the neonate, leading to risk for jaundice. Those on the side of delayed cord clamping might say that waiting to terminate the cord prevents the baby’s oxygen supply from being prematurely cut off. Also, how long should the delay last: One minute? Two minutes? More? Less?

Clearly, the issue of cord clamping requires discussion. Therefore, we have devoted the first Master Class of 2015 to this important topic. We have invited Dr. George A. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and Chair, and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and ultrasound in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to explore the debate. As the recent vice chair for the Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Macones has a unique perspective on the arguments for and against immediate or delayed cord clamping, as well as significant experience as a practicing ob.gyn. and leader at a vibrant academic medical center.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Correction, 4/14/15: An earlier version of this article misstated the potential consequences of waiting too long to clamp the umbilical cord.

Embryogenesis is an incredible phenomenon. It begins with fertilization and implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall, followed by development of the extraembryonic membrane which gives rise to the placenta, which is, literally, the lifeblood of the fetus. Although physicians often focus on the health of the placenta during pregnancy, the umbilical cord is an equally important organ.

The umbilical cord acts as a conduit through which metabolic products and biproducts, such as nutrients, antibodies, iron, and blood, pass bidirectionally between a mother and her baby. Many problems can arise if the cord becomes altered. For example, true umbilical cord knot is associated with small-for-gestational-age fetuses, premature birth, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and fetal death (Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2013;122:18-21). In addition, short or long cord length may lead to fetal heart rate anomalies and higher risk for birth asphyxia (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2012;62:520-5).

While the health of the umbilical cord during pregnancy closely correlates to successful outcomes, the cord’s functions conclude at birth. Physicians clamp the umbilical cord at parturition as a routine part of the delivery process. Many ob.gyns. may not even stop to think about cord clamping. To borrow the phrase from the old Nike slogan, they “just do it.”

However, exactly when physicians should clamp the umbilical cord remains a topic for debate. Should ob.gyns. clamp the cord immediately or shortly after birth? Proponents of immediate clamping might argue that waiting too long could cause an influx of placental* blood in the neonate, leading to risk for jaundice. Those on the side of delayed cord clamping might say that waiting to terminate the cord prevents the baby’s oxygen supply from being prematurely cut off. Also, how long should the delay last: One minute? Two minutes? More? Less?

Clearly, the issue of cord clamping requires discussion. Therefore, we have devoted the first Master Class of 2015 to this important topic. We have invited Dr. George A. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and Chair, and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and ultrasound in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to explore the debate. As the recent vice chair for the Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Macones has a unique perspective on the arguments for and against immediate or delayed cord clamping, as well as significant experience as a practicing ob.gyn. and leader at a vibrant academic medical center.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Correction, 4/14/15: An earlier version of this article misstated the potential consequences of waiting too long to clamp the umbilical cord.

Embryogenesis is an incredible phenomenon. It begins with fertilization and implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall, followed by development of the extraembryonic membrane which gives rise to the placenta, which is, literally, the lifeblood of the fetus. Although physicians often focus on the health of the placenta during pregnancy, the umbilical cord is an equally important organ.

The umbilical cord acts as a conduit through which metabolic products and biproducts, such as nutrients, antibodies, iron, and blood, pass bidirectionally between a mother and her baby. Many problems can arise if the cord becomes altered. For example, true umbilical cord knot is associated with small-for-gestational-age fetuses, premature birth, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and fetal death (Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2013;122:18-21). In addition, short or long cord length may lead to fetal heart rate anomalies and higher risk for birth asphyxia (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2012;62:520-5).

While the health of the umbilical cord during pregnancy closely correlates to successful outcomes, the cord’s functions conclude at birth. Physicians clamp the umbilical cord at parturition as a routine part of the delivery process. Many ob.gyns. may not even stop to think about cord clamping. To borrow the phrase from the old Nike slogan, they “just do it.”

However, exactly when physicians should clamp the umbilical cord remains a topic for debate. Should ob.gyns. clamp the cord immediately or shortly after birth? Proponents of immediate clamping might argue that waiting too long could cause an influx of placental* blood in the neonate, leading to risk for jaundice. Those on the side of delayed cord clamping might say that waiting to terminate the cord prevents the baby’s oxygen supply from being prematurely cut off. Also, how long should the delay last: One minute? Two minutes? More? Less?

Clearly, the issue of cord clamping requires discussion. Therefore, we have devoted the first Master Class of 2015 to this important topic. We have invited Dr. George A. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and Chair, and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and ultrasound in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, St. Louis, to explore the debate. As the recent vice chair for the Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Macones has a unique perspective on the arguments for and against immediate or delayed cord clamping, as well as significant experience as a practicing ob.gyn. and leader at a vibrant academic medical center.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Correction, 4/14/15: An earlier version of this article misstated the potential consequences of waiting too long to clamp the umbilical cord.

Obesity not only increases a patient’s lifetime risk of numerous chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease, but it also is a major health issue during pregnancy. Women who are obese in pregnancy have a significantly higher chance of developing adverse perinatal outcomes and experiencing various complications that affect both their health and that of their babies.

With an ever-increasing population of overweight and obese women of reproductive age, as key caregivers for women, we must reexamine our approaches and do much more than microfocusing on a woman’s pre- and postdelivery health. We must play a more active role in helping our patients establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle – one that will help ward off and reduce the incidence of this concerning condition.

Over the previous two Master Class installments on obstetrics, we discussed the extent of the obesity epidemic and its link to diabetes, the alarming number of infants, children, and adolescents who are obese, and the implications of these societal and medical trends for ob.gyns.

In the July Master Class, we discussed the importance of appropriately counseling patients on healthy weight gain and physical activity in pregnancy. Because ob.gyns. may be the only health care professionals that many women may see, it is becoming more important that we help our patients and their children attain and maintain positive health and well-being.

In our September installment, Dr. Thomas R. Moore looked at obesity trends through the lens of the Barker Hypothesis, which got us thinking more than 3 decades ago about the role of intrauterine environment in short- and long-term health of offspring. Dr. Moore discussed how obesity in pregnancy appears to program offspring for downstream cardiovascular risk in adulthood.

He told us that we must not only liberally treat gestational diabetes and optimize glucose control during pregnancy, but, most importantly, we also must emphasize to women the importance of having healthy weights at the time of conception.

This month’s Master Class examines this latter concept in more depth. Dr. Patrick Catalano, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Center for Reproductive Health at MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, has been at the forefront of research on the physiologic impact of obesity on the placenta and the fetus, and on approaches for addressing maternal obesity and improving perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Catalano explains here why weight loss before pregnancy appears to be important for preventing adverse perinatal outcomes and breaking the intergenerational transfer of obesity.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Obesity not only increases a patient’s lifetime risk of numerous chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease, but it also is a major health issue during pregnancy. Women who are obese in pregnancy have a significantly higher chance of developing adverse perinatal outcomes and experiencing various complications that affect both their health and that of their babies.

With an ever-increasing population of overweight and obese women of reproductive age, as key caregivers for women, we must reexamine our approaches and do much more than microfocusing on a woman’s pre- and postdelivery health. We must play a more active role in helping our patients establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle – one that will help ward off and reduce the incidence of this concerning condition.

Over the previous two Master Class installments on obstetrics, we discussed the extent of the obesity epidemic and its link to diabetes, the alarming number of infants, children, and adolescents who are obese, and the implications of these societal and medical trends for ob.gyns.

In the July Master Class, we discussed the importance of appropriately counseling patients on healthy weight gain and physical activity in pregnancy. Because ob.gyns. may be the only health care professionals that many women may see, it is becoming more important that we help our patients and their children attain and maintain positive health and well-being.

In our September installment, Dr. Thomas R. Moore looked at obesity trends through the lens of the Barker Hypothesis, which got us thinking more than 3 decades ago about the role of intrauterine environment in short- and long-term health of offspring. Dr. Moore discussed how obesity in pregnancy appears to program offspring for downstream cardiovascular risk in adulthood.

He told us that we must not only liberally treat gestational diabetes and optimize glucose control during pregnancy, but, most importantly, we also must emphasize to women the importance of having healthy weights at the time of conception.

This month’s Master Class examines this latter concept in more depth. Dr. Patrick Catalano, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Center for Reproductive Health at MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, has been at the forefront of research on the physiologic impact of obesity on the placenta and the fetus, and on approaches for addressing maternal obesity and improving perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Catalano explains here why weight loss before pregnancy appears to be important for preventing adverse perinatal outcomes and breaking the intergenerational transfer of obesity.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Obesity not only increases a patient’s lifetime risk of numerous chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease, but it also is a major health issue during pregnancy. Women who are obese in pregnancy have a significantly higher chance of developing adverse perinatal outcomes and experiencing various complications that affect both their health and that of their babies.

With an ever-increasing population of overweight and obese women of reproductive age, as key caregivers for women, we must reexamine our approaches and do much more than microfocusing on a woman’s pre- and postdelivery health. We must play a more active role in helping our patients establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle – one that will help ward off and reduce the incidence of this concerning condition.

Over the previous two Master Class installments on obstetrics, we discussed the extent of the obesity epidemic and its link to diabetes, the alarming number of infants, children, and adolescents who are obese, and the implications of these societal and medical trends for ob.gyns.

In the July Master Class, we discussed the importance of appropriately counseling patients on healthy weight gain and physical activity in pregnancy. Because ob.gyns. may be the only health care professionals that many women may see, it is becoming more important that we help our patients and their children attain and maintain positive health and well-being.

In our September installment, Dr. Thomas R. Moore looked at obesity trends through the lens of the Barker Hypothesis, which got us thinking more than 3 decades ago about the role of intrauterine environment in short- and long-term health of offspring. Dr. Moore discussed how obesity in pregnancy appears to program offspring for downstream cardiovascular risk in adulthood.

He told us that we must not only liberally treat gestational diabetes and optimize glucose control during pregnancy, but, most importantly, we also must emphasize to women the importance of having healthy weights at the time of conception.

This month’s Master Class examines this latter concept in more depth. Dr. Patrick Catalano, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Center for Reproductive Health at MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, has been at the forefront of research on the physiologic impact of obesity on the placenta and the fetus, and on approaches for addressing maternal obesity and improving perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Catalano explains here why weight loss before pregnancy appears to be important for preventing adverse perinatal outcomes and breaking the intergenerational transfer of obesity.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

On Aug. 27, 2013, the field of obstetrics and gynecology suffered a great loss: the passing of Dr. David J.P. Barker. Dr. Barker was a visionary and leader whose hypothesis about the links between a mother’s health and the long-term health of her children was controversial when he first posed it in the late 1980s. However, after subsequent decades of maternal-fetal practice and research, his idea that preventing chronic disease starts with a healthy mother and baby, is embraced by the medical and science communities today.

I was just starting my career when Dr. Barker’s hypothesis, known then as the "fetal origins hypothesis" but subsequently referred to as the "Barker Hypothesis," was published. During my fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine at Yale University, I had the privilege of attending one of Dr. Barker’s lectures and meeting him. While my colleagues and I thought him an eloquent and impassioned speaker, Dr. Barker’s theory – that there was a relationship between a person’s birth weight and his or her lifetime risk for chronic disease – was highly contentious. He had based his hypothesis on large epidemiological studies conducted in Finland, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States – all of which revealed that the lower a person’s birth weight, the higher his or her risk for developing coronary heart disease. In addition, he concluded that the lower a person’s birth weight, but the faster the weight gain after age 2 years, the higher a person’s risk for hypertension, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.

At that time, we did not fully realize the significance, gravity, and enormity of Dr. Barker’s contribution to the ob.gyn. field. I could not imagine the impact that his work would have on my professional path. Dr. Barker’s early papers often concluded with a section looking to the future, and in one of them he stated that "we now need to progress beyond epidemiologic associations [between in utero conditions and health later in life] to greater understanding of the cellular and molecular processes that underlie them"(Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71:1344s-52s). From my work as a physician with diabetic pregnant women to my scientific research devoted to understanding how, at the molecular level, maternal diabetes affects the developing fetus, I have a great appreciation and respect for Dr. Barker’s work.

Therefore, I am very pleased that this month’s Master Class is devoted to a discussion of how the Barker Hypothesis applies today. We have invited Dr. Thomas R. Moore, a perinatologist who is chair of the department of reproductive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, to give his reflection on how Dr. Barker’s once radical ideas revolutionized our field.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of the Master Class column. Contact him at [email protected].

On Aug. 27, 2013, the field of obstetrics and gynecology suffered a great loss: the passing of Dr. David J.P. Barker. Dr. Barker was a visionary and leader whose hypothesis about the links between a mother’s health and the long-term health of her children was controversial when he first posed it in the late 1980s. However, after subsequent decades of maternal-fetal practice and research, his idea that preventing chronic disease starts with a healthy mother and baby, is embraced by the medical and science communities today.

I was just starting my career when Dr. Barker’s hypothesis, known then as the "fetal origins hypothesis" but subsequently referred to as the "Barker Hypothesis," was published. During my fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine at Yale University, I had the privilege of attending one of Dr. Barker’s lectures and meeting him. While my colleagues and I thought him an eloquent and impassioned speaker, Dr. Barker’s theory – that there was a relationship between a person’s birth weight and his or her lifetime risk for chronic disease – was highly contentious. He had based his hypothesis on large epidemiological studies conducted in Finland, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States – all of which revealed that the lower a person’s birth weight, the higher his or her risk for developing coronary heart disease. In addition, he concluded that the lower a person’s birth weight, but the faster the weight gain after age 2 years, the higher a person’s risk for hypertension, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.

At that time, we did not fully realize the significance, gravity, and enormity of Dr. Barker’s contribution to the ob.gyn. field. I could not imagine the impact that his work would have on my professional path. Dr. Barker’s early papers often concluded with a section looking to the future, and in one of them he stated that "we now need to progress beyond epidemiologic associations [between in utero conditions and health later in life] to greater understanding of the cellular and molecular processes that underlie them"(Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71:1344s-52s). From my work as a physician with diabetic pregnant women to my scientific research devoted to understanding how, at the molecular level, maternal diabetes affects the developing fetus, I have a great appreciation and respect for Dr. Barker’s work.

Therefore, I am very pleased that this month’s Master Class is devoted to a discussion of how the Barker Hypothesis applies today. We have invited Dr. Thomas R. Moore, a perinatologist who is chair of the department of reproductive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, to give his reflection on how Dr. Barker’s once radical ideas revolutionized our field.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of the Master Class column. Contact him at [email protected].

On Aug. 27, 2013, the field of obstetrics and gynecology suffered a great loss: the passing of Dr. David J.P. Barker. Dr. Barker was a visionary and leader whose hypothesis about the links between a mother’s health and the long-term health of her children was controversial when he first posed it in the late 1980s. However, after subsequent decades of maternal-fetal practice and research, his idea that preventing chronic disease starts with a healthy mother and baby, is embraced by the medical and science communities today.

I was just starting my career when Dr. Barker’s hypothesis, known then as the "fetal origins hypothesis" but subsequently referred to as the "Barker Hypothesis," was published. During my fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine at Yale University, I had the privilege of attending one of Dr. Barker’s lectures and meeting him. While my colleagues and I thought him an eloquent and impassioned speaker, Dr. Barker’s theory – that there was a relationship between a person’s birth weight and his or her lifetime risk for chronic disease – was highly contentious. He had based his hypothesis on large epidemiological studies conducted in Finland, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States – all of which revealed that the lower a person’s birth weight, the higher his or her risk for developing coronary heart disease. In addition, he concluded that the lower a person’s birth weight, but the faster the weight gain after age 2 years, the higher a person’s risk for hypertension, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.

At that time, we did not fully realize the significance, gravity, and enormity of Dr. Barker’s contribution to the ob.gyn. field. I could not imagine the impact that his work would have on my professional path. Dr. Barker’s early papers often concluded with a section looking to the future, and in one of them he stated that "we now need to progress beyond epidemiologic associations [between in utero conditions and health later in life] to greater understanding of the cellular and molecular processes that underlie them"(Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71:1344s-52s). From my work as a physician with diabetic pregnant women to my scientific research devoted to understanding how, at the molecular level, maternal diabetes affects the developing fetus, I have a great appreciation and respect for Dr. Barker’s work.

Therefore, I am very pleased that this month’s Master Class is devoted to a discussion of how the Barker Hypothesis applies today. We have invited Dr. Thomas R. Moore, a perinatologist who is chair of the department of reproductive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, to give his reflection on how Dr. Barker’s once radical ideas revolutionized our field.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of the Master Class column. Contact him at [email protected].

Inositol has generated increasing attention as a treatment for conditions related to pregnancy, including polycystic ovary syndrome¹ and neural tube defects.^2,3 In this study, pregnant women with a family history of type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to:

• folic acid alone (400 µg daily)—placebo group
• folic acid plus myo-inositol (400 µg and 4 g daily, respectively)—treatment group.

The goal was to determine whether the addition of myo-inositol could prevent GDM and macrosomia. Because the study was conducted in Italy, GDM was diagnosed using recommendations from the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG).⁴

Of the 197 women who completed the study, those given myo-inositol had a lower incidence of GDM than those given placebo: 6 of 99 women in the treatment group developed GDM, compared with 15 of 98 in the placebo group (P = .04). None of the women in the treatment group gave birth to a macrosomic infant (>4,000 g), compared with seven women in the placebo group (P = .007). However, other adverse outcomes, such as cesarean delivery, gestational hypertension, shoulder dystocia, preterm delivery, and fetal respiratory distress syndrome occurred at similar frequencies in the two groups.

RELATED ARTICLE Weight changes between pregnancies tied to risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (Web NEWS, June 2011)

How to improve outcomes in gestational diabetes—for mother and baby
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA (March 2011)

Strengths and limitations of the study

Investigators conducted a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, one of the first moderately sized trials to examine the therapeutic effects of myo-inositol in pregnant women who had a family history of type 2 diabetes (in one or both parents). This study builds upon a previous report from the same investigators of the positive effects of myo-inositol in reducing insulin resistance in a smaller group of women (n = 69) with GDM.⁵

Another strength is that the investigators focused on a compound, inositol, readily found in foods, which suggests that women could derive benefits from a diet fortified with this supplement.

However, there are several concerns, also touched upon in a previous commentary about this study,⁶ which include:

• Only white women were included in the study. (As an ethnic group, white women have a lower risk of GDM.)
• All of the women enrolled in this trial had a prepregnancy body mass index within the normal range. Women who have a family history of type 2 diabetes who are also obese are a significant population to study.
• More work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of myo-inositol to help determine the optimal concentration to administer and the route of administration (ie, in pill form or as part of a diet plan).

Another important point: Investigators used IADPSG criteria to diagnose GDM; these criteria tend to identify significantly more cases of diabetes than the Carpenter and Coustan criteria, which are currently used in the United States.^7,8 Indeed, a National Institutes of Health expert panel recommended continuing use of the Carpenter and Coustan criteria to diagnose GDM in the United States until more data are collected to show correlation between changing the diagnostic threshold and improved fetal and maternal outcomes.⁹

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Current standards for identifying GDM include appropriate screening. Methods for prevention of GDM including dietary counseling and advice on an exercise program to reduce fetal macrosomia, but no interventions, to date, have effectively controlled GDM.

The concept of using a dietary supplement to prevent GDM is intriguing, and the results of this trial, coupled with a second recent report on the beneficial effects of myo-inositol to prevent GDM,10 are promising. However, the many concerns raised here—especially the use of IADPSG criteria—make it difficult to apply these findings to traditional diagnostic criteria for US practitioners. Follow-up, large-scale trials are needed to determine how effective this supplement is in preventing GDM and whether its effects translate into benefits for women at increased risk of developing diabetes. The routine use of myo-inositol in patients with a family history of type 2 diabetes should await further studies, including the aforementioned trials.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA

Inositol has generated increasing attention as a treatment for conditions related to pregnancy, including polycystic ovary syndrome¹ and neural tube defects.^2,3 In this study, pregnant women with a family history of type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to:

• folic acid alone (400 µg daily)—placebo group
• folic acid plus myo-inositol (400 µg and 4 g daily, respectively)—treatment group.

The goal was to determine whether the addition of myo-inositol could prevent GDM and macrosomia. Because the study was conducted in Italy, GDM was diagnosed using recommendations from the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG).⁴

Of the 197 women who completed the study, those given myo-inositol had a lower incidence of GDM than those given placebo: 6 of 99 women in the treatment group developed GDM, compared with 15 of 98 in the placebo group (P = .04). None of the women in the treatment group gave birth to a macrosomic infant (>4,000 g), compared with seven women in the placebo group (P = .007). However, other adverse outcomes, such as cesarean delivery, gestational hypertension, shoulder dystocia, preterm delivery, and fetal respiratory distress syndrome occurred at similar frequencies in the two groups.

RELATED ARTICLE Weight changes between pregnancies tied to risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (Web NEWS, June 2011)

How to improve outcomes in gestational diabetes—for mother and baby
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA (March 2011)

Strengths and limitations of the study

Investigators conducted a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, one of the first moderately sized trials to examine the therapeutic effects of myo-inositol in pregnant women who had a family history of type 2 diabetes (in one or both parents). This study builds upon a previous report from the same investigators of the positive effects of myo-inositol in reducing insulin resistance in a smaller group of women (n = 69) with GDM.⁵

Another strength is that the investigators focused on a compound, inositol, readily found in foods, which suggests that women could derive benefits from a diet fortified with this supplement.

However, there are several concerns, also touched upon in a previous commentary about this study,⁶ which include:

• Only white women were included in the study. (As an ethnic group, white women have a lower risk of GDM.)
• All of the women enrolled in this trial had a prepregnancy body mass index within the normal range. Women who have a family history of type 2 diabetes who are also obese are a significant population to study.
• More work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of myo-inositol to help determine the optimal concentration to administer and the route of administration (ie, in pill form or as part of a diet plan).

Another important point: Investigators used IADPSG criteria to diagnose GDM; these criteria tend to identify significantly more cases of diabetes than the Carpenter and Coustan criteria, which are currently used in the United States.^7,8 Indeed, a National Institutes of Health expert panel recommended continuing use of the Carpenter and Coustan criteria to diagnose GDM in the United States until more data are collected to show correlation between changing the diagnostic threshold and improved fetal and maternal outcomes.⁹

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Current standards for identifying GDM include appropriate screening. Methods for prevention of GDM including dietary counseling and advice on an exercise program to reduce fetal macrosomia, but no interventions, to date, have effectively controlled GDM.

The concept of using a dietary supplement to prevent GDM is intriguing, and the results of this trial, coupled with a second recent report on the beneficial effects of myo-inositol to prevent GDM,10 are promising. However, the many concerns raised here—especially the use of IADPSG criteria—make it difficult to apply these findings to traditional diagnostic criteria for US practitioners. Follow-up, large-scale trials are needed to determine how effective this supplement is in preventing GDM and whether its effects translate into benefits for women at increased risk of developing diabetes. The routine use of myo-inositol in patients with a family history of type 2 diabetes should await further studies, including the aforementioned trials.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA

Inositol has generated increasing attention as a treatment for conditions related to pregnancy, including polycystic ovary syndrome¹ and neural tube defects.^2,3 In this study, pregnant women with a family history of type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to:

• folic acid alone (400 µg daily)—placebo group
• folic acid plus myo-inositol (400 µg and 4 g daily, respectively)—treatment group.

The goal was to determine whether the addition of myo-inositol could prevent GDM and macrosomia. Because the study was conducted in Italy, GDM was diagnosed using recommendations from the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG).⁴

Of the 197 women who completed the study, those given myo-inositol had a lower incidence of GDM than those given placebo: 6 of 99 women in the treatment group developed GDM, compared with 15 of 98 in the placebo group (P = .04). None of the women in the treatment group gave birth to a macrosomic infant (>4,000 g), compared with seven women in the placebo group (P = .007). However, other adverse outcomes, such as cesarean delivery, gestational hypertension, shoulder dystocia, preterm delivery, and fetal respiratory distress syndrome occurred at similar frequencies in the two groups.

RELATED ARTICLE Weight changes between pregnancies tied to risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (Web NEWS, June 2011)

How to improve outcomes in gestational diabetes—for mother and baby
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA (March 2011)

Strengths and limitations of the study

Investigators conducted a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, one of the first moderately sized trials to examine the therapeutic effects of myo-inositol in pregnant women who had a family history of type 2 diabetes (in one or both parents). This study builds upon a previous report from the same investigators of the positive effects of myo-inositol in reducing insulin resistance in a smaller group of women (n = 69) with GDM.⁵

Another strength is that the investigators focused on a compound, inositol, readily found in foods, which suggests that women could derive benefits from a diet fortified with this supplement.

However, there are several concerns, also touched upon in a previous commentary about this study,⁶ which include:

• Only white women were included in the study. (As an ethnic group, white women have a lower risk of GDM.)
• All of the women enrolled in this trial had a prepregnancy body mass index within the normal range. Women who have a family history of type 2 diabetes who are also obese are a significant population to study.
• More work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of myo-inositol to help determine the optimal concentration to administer and the route of administration (ie, in pill form or as part of a diet plan).

Another important point: Investigators used IADPSG criteria to diagnose GDM; these criteria tend to identify significantly more cases of diabetes than the Carpenter and Coustan criteria, which are currently used in the United States.^7,8 Indeed, a National Institutes of Health expert panel recommended continuing use of the Carpenter and Coustan criteria to diagnose GDM in the United States until more data are collected to show correlation between changing the diagnostic threshold and improved fetal and maternal outcomes.⁹

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
Current standards for identifying GDM include appropriate screening. Methods for prevention of GDM including dietary counseling and advice on an exercise program to reduce fetal macrosomia, but no interventions, to date, have effectively controlled GDM.

The concept of using a dietary supplement to prevent GDM is intriguing, and the results of this trial, coupled with a second recent report on the beneficial effects of myo-inositol to prevent GDM,10 are promising. However, the many concerns raised here—especially the use of IADPSG criteria—make it difficult to apply these findings to traditional diagnostic criteria for US practitioners. Follow-up, large-scale trials are needed to determine how effective this supplement is in preventing GDM and whether its effects translate into benefits for women at increased risk of developing diabetes. The routine use of myo-inositol in patients with a family history of type 2 diabetes should await further studies, including the aforementioned trials.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA