Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.

However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.

Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.

In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.

To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.

CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.

Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.

Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.

These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.

Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,

“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
 

Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials

In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.

Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.

She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.

Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.

Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.

However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.

Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.

In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.

To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.

CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.

Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.

Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.

These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.

Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,

“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
 

Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials

In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.

Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.

She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.

Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.

Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.

However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.

Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.

In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.

To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.

CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.

Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.

Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.

These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.

Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,

“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
 

Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials

In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.

Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.

She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.

Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.

Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?

Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Gabbe

Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.

Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).

The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)

For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.

Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.

Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?

Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%

In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.

Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.

When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.

Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).

The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)

We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.

Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?

Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.

When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.

In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.

Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.

So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.

Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.

You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.

The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.

Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.

The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?

Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.

Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.

The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.

Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?

Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Gabbe

Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.

Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).

The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)

For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.

Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.

Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?

Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%

In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.

Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.

When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.

Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).

The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)

We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.

Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?

Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.

When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.

In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.

Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.

So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.

Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.

You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.

The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.

Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.

The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?

Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.

Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.

The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.

Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?

Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Gabbe

Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.

Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).

The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)

For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.

Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.

Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?

Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%

In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.

Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.

When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.

Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).

The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)

We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.

Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?

Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.

When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.

In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.

Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.

So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.

Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.

You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.

The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.

Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.

The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?

Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.

Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.

The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.

Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.¹

For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)² were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.³ By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.⁴

The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.⁵ In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.⁶

To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive 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. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.

2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.

3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.

4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.

5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.

6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.

Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.¹

For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)² were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.³ By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.⁴

The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.⁵ In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.⁶

To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive 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. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.

2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.

3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.

4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.

5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.

6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.

Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.¹

For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)² were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.³ By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.⁴

The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.⁵ In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.⁶

To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive 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. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.

2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.

3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.

4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.

5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.

6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.