Ob.Gyn. News

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The federal government’s temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine last month underscores the significant challenges facing one of the most vulnerable groups – homebound patients.

Courtesy Dr. Peter Gliatto

There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.

Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.

“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”

Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
 

Many roadblocks to vaccination

Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.

“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.

Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.

“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.

Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.

“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
 

Expenses are greater

The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.

Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.

For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.

There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.

William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.

“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”

Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.

“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”

Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.

While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.

Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.

“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
 

Overcoming the challenges

With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.

Courtesy Central Ohio Primary Care

Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program. 

“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.

People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.

“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.

If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”

Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.

“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.

Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.

The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

This article was updated 4/29/21.

The holy grail of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the delivery of a healthy child. From the world’s first successful ART cycle of in vitro fertilization in 1978 (3 years later in the United States), the goal of every cycle is to provide the woman with an embryo that has the highest potential for implantation and, ultimately, a single live birth.

Embryo aneuploidy is a major factor in the success of human reproduction. As women age, aneuploidy is reported in less than 30% of women aged younger than 35 years but rises to 90% for those in their mid-40s. Intuitively and through randomized, controlled trials, chromosome testing of embryos is a reasonable approach toward improved cycle outcomes and allows for the transfer of a single euploid embryo.

Recently, the phrase “add-ons” has entered the vernacular of editorials on IVF. These additional procedures are offered to patients with the expectation of improving results, yet many have not been supported by rigorous scientifically controlled research trials, e.g., endometrial scratch, embryo glue, and time-lapse imaging of embryos. Where does preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) belong in the IVF armamentarium and why, after 30 years, are there two diametrically opposed views on its benefit? (We will not address testing for single gene defects or chromosome structural rearrangements.)
 

How did we get here?

The first iteration of PGT used fluorescence in situ hybridization to not only identify X-linked recessive diseases (Hum Genet. 1992;89:18-22) but also the most common chromosome disorders (13, 18, 21, X, Y) by removing one to two blastomere cells from a day 3 embryo (six- to eight-cell stage). Despite wide enthusiasm, the technique was eventually determined to reduce implantation by nearly 40% and was abandoned; presumably impairing the embryo by removing up to one-third of its make-up.

Because of extended embryo culture to the blastocyst stage along with the improved cryopreservation process of vitrification, the next generation of embryo analysis surfaced, what we now refer to as PGT 2.0. Currently, approximately five to six cells from the outer embryo trophectoderm are removed and sent to a specialized laboratory for 24-chromosome screening while the biopsied embryos are cryopreserved. Outcome data (aneuploidy rates, mosaicism) have been influenced by the evolution of genetic platforms – from array comparative genome hybridization to single-nucleotide polymorphism array, to quantitative polymerase chain reaction, to next-generation sequencing (NGS). The newest platform, NGS with high resolution, provides the most extensive degree of analysis by detecting unbalanced translocations and a low cut-off percentage for mosaicism (20%). The clinical error rate is approximately 1%-2%, improved from the 2%-4% of earlier techniques.

The phenomenon of mosaicism describes two distinct cell lines in one embryo (typically one normal and one abnormal) and is defined based on the percentage of mosaicism – currently, the lower limit is 20%. Embryos with less than 20%-30% mosaicism are considered euploid and those greater than 70%-80% are aneuploid. Of note, clinics that do not request the reporting of mosaicism can result in the potential discarding of embryos labeled as aneuploid that would otherwise have potentially resulted in a live birth. The higher the cut-off value for designating mosaicism, the lower the false-positive rate (declaring an embryo aneuploid when euploid). While there is no safe degree of mosaicism, most transfers have resulted in chromosomally normal infants despite a lower implantation rate and higher miscarriage rate.
 

Current status

The greatest advantage of PGT for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is its increase in promoting a single embryo transfer. Medical evidence supports pregnancy outcomes equivalent from a single euploid embryo transfer versus a double “untested” embryo transfer.

Only a handful of randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of PGT-A. Outcomes have favored improved live birth rates; however, criticism exists for enrolling only good prognosis patients given their high likelihood of developing blastocyst embryos to biopsy. The only trial that used an “intention to treat” protocol (rather than randomization at the time of biopsy) did not demonstrate any difference in live birth or miscarriage comparing embryo selection by PGT-A versus embryo morphology alone. However, post hoc analysis did show a benefit with PGT-A in the 35- to 40-year-old age group, not in the less than 35-year-old group. All other trials demonstrated a reduction in miscarriage with PGT-A but only as a secondary outcome.

The medical literature does not support PGT-A to manage patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and there is no evidence for improvement in women aged less than 35 years or egg donors (F&S Reports. 2021;2:36-42). PGT-A has been effective in patients wishing family balancing.
 

Controversy

Enthusiasm for PGT-A is countered by lingering concerns. Trophectoderm cells are not in 100% concordance with the inner cell mass, which presumably explains the reports of chromosomally normal live births from the transfer of aneuploid embryos. Biopsy techniques among embryologists are not standardized. As a result, damage to the embryo has been raised as a possible explanation for equivalent pregnancy rates in studies showing no superiority of PGT-A in pregnancy outcome, although this point has recently been refuted.

PGT-A also embraces the “blast-or-bust” credo whereby no embryo transfer occurs unless a blastocyst embryo develops. This continues to beg the unanswerable question – would a woman who did not develop a blastocyst embryo for potential biopsy still conceive if she underwent a day 3 cleavage stage embryo transfer?
 

Future

Exciting iterations are encroaching for PGT 3.0. One method is blastocyst fluid aspiration to obtain DNA suitable for analysis by molecular genetic methods. Another is noninvasive PGT whereby spent media from the embryo is analyzed using cell-free DNA. Concordance with inner cell mass is reasonably good (approximately 85%) but needs to improve. A major advantage is the biopsy skill set among embryologists is eliminated. A criticism of noninvasive PGT is the risk of false-positive results from contamination of aneuploid cell secretion by physiologic apoptotic cells. Confined placental mosaicism can also increase aneuploidy in cell-free DNA thereby contributing to false positives.

Conclusion

PGT-A is robust technology that appears to benefit women aged above 35 years but not the general infertile population. Error rates must be consistent among laboratories and be lowered. Regarding mosaic embryos, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines recommend offering another egg retrieval if only mosaic embryos are available and to only consider mosaic embryo transfer following extensive genetic counseling. Long-term effects of PGT-A on children are lacking. The Cochrane Database concluded there was insufficient evidence to make PGT-A routine.

So, the debate is clear and ongoing – universal versus discretionary use of PGT-A? As in all things of life, one size does not fit all, and PGT-A is no exception.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Contact him at [email protected].

The holy grail of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the delivery of a healthy child. From the world’s first successful ART cycle of in vitro fertilization in 1978 (3 years later in the United States), the goal of every cycle is to provide the woman with an embryo that has the highest potential for implantation and, ultimately, a single live birth.

Embryo aneuploidy is a major factor in the success of human reproduction. As women age, aneuploidy is reported in less than 30% of women aged younger than 35 years but rises to 90% for those in their mid-40s. Intuitively and through randomized, controlled trials, chromosome testing of embryos is a reasonable approach toward improved cycle outcomes and allows for the transfer of a single euploid embryo.

Recently, the phrase “add-ons” has entered the vernacular of editorials on IVF. These additional procedures are offered to patients with the expectation of improving results, yet many have not been supported by rigorous scientifically controlled research trials, e.g., endometrial scratch, embryo glue, and time-lapse imaging of embryos. Where does preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) belong in the IVF armamentarium and why, after 30 years, are there two diametrically opposed views on its benefit? (We will not address testing for single gene defects or chromosome structural rearrangements.)
 

How did we get here?

The first iteration of PGT used fluorescence in situ hybridization to not only identify X-linked recessive diseases (Hum Genet. 1992;89:18-22) but also the most common chromosome disorders (13, 18, 21, X, Y) by removing one to two blastomere cells from a day 3 embryo (six- to eight-cell stage). Despite wide enthusiasm, the technique was eventually determined to reduce implantation by nearly 40% and was abandoned; presumably impairing the embryo by removing up to one-third of its make-up.

Because of extended embryo culture to the blastocyst stage along with the improved cryopreservation process of vitrification, the next generation of embryo analysis surfaced, what we now refer to as PGT 2.0. Currently, approximately five to six cells from the outer embryo trophectoderm are removed and sent to a specialized laboratory for 24-chromosome screening while the biopsied embryos are cryopreserved. Outcome data (aneuploidy rates, mosaicism) have been influenced by the evolution of genetic platforms – from array comparative genome hybridization to single-nucleotide polymorphism array, to quantitative polymerase chain reaction, to next-generation sequencing (NGS). The newest platform, NGS with high resolution, provides the most extensive degree of analysis by detecting unbalanced translocations and a low cut-off percentage for mosaicism (20%). The clinical error rate is approximately 1%-2%, improved from the 2%-4% of earlier techniques.

The phenomenon of mosaicism describes two distinct cell lines in one embryo (typically one normal and one abnormal) and is defined based on the percentage of mosaicism – currently, the lower limit is 20%. Embryos with less than 20%-30% mosaicism are considered euploid and those greater than 70%-80% are aneuploid. Of note, clinics that do not request the reporting of mosaicism can result in the potential discarding of embryos labeled as aneuploid that would otherwise have potentially resulted in a live birth. The higher the cut-off value for designating mosaicism, the lower the false-positive rate (declaring an embryo aneuploid when euploid). While there is no safe degree of mosaicism, most transfers have resulted in chromosomally normal infants despite a lower implantation rate and higher miscarriage rate.
 

Current status

The greatest advantage of PGT for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is its increase in promoting a single embryo transfer. Medical evidence supports pregnancy outcomes equivalent from a single euploid embryo transfer versus a double “untested” embryo transfer.

Only a handful of randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of PGT-A. Outcomes have favored improved live birth rates; however, criticism exists for enrolling only good prognosis patients given their high likelihood of developing blastocyst embryos to biopsy. The only trial that used an “intention to treat” protocol (rather than randomization at the time of biopsy) did not demonstrate any difference in live birth or miscarriage comparing embryo selection by PGT-A versus embryo morphology alone. However, post hoc analysis did show a benefit with PGT-A in the 35- to 40-year-old age group, not in the less than 35-year-old group. All other trials demonstrated a reduction in miscarriage with PGT-A but only as a secondary outcome.

The medical literature does not support PGT-A to manage patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and there is no evidence for improvement in women aged less than 35 years or egg donors (F&S Reports. 2021;2:36-42). PGT-A has been effective in patients wishing family balancing.
 

Controversy

Enthusiasm for PGT-A is countered by lingering concerns. Trophectoderm cells are not in 100% concordance with the inner cell mass, which presumably explains the reports of chromosomally normal live births from the transfer of aneuploid embryos. Biopsy techniques among embryologists are not standardized. As a result, damage to the embryo has been raised as a possible explanation for equivalent pregnancy rates in studies showing no superiority of PGT-A in pregnancy outcome, although this point has recently been refuted.

PGT-A also embraces the “blast-or-bust” credo whereby no embryo transfer occurs unless a blastocyst embryo develops. This continues to beg the unanswerable question – would a woman who did not develop a blastocyst embryo for potential biopsy still conceive if she underwent a day 3 cleavage stage embryo transfer?
 

Future

Exciting iterations are encroaching for PGT 3.0. One method is blastocyst fluid aspiration to obtain DNA suitable for analysis by molecular genetic methods. Another is noninvasive PGT whereby spent media from the embryo is analyzed using cell-free DNA. Concordance with inner cell mass is reasonably good (approximately 85%) but needs to improve. A major advantage is the biopsy skill set among embryologists is eliminated. A criticism of noninvasive PGT is the risk of false-positive results from contamination of aneuploid cell secretion by physiologic apoptotic cells. Confined placental mosaicism can also increase aneuploidy in cell-free DNA thereby contributing to false positives.

Conclusion

PGT-A is robust technology that appears to benefit women aged above 35 years but not the general infertile population. Error rates must be consistent among laboratories and be lowered. Regarding mosaic embryos, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines recommend offering another egg retrieval if only mosaic embryos are available and to only consider mosaic embryo transfer following extensive genetic counseling. Long-term effects of PGT-A on children are lacking. The Cochrane Database concluded there was insufficient evidence to make PGT-A routine.

So, the debate is clear and ongoing – universal versus discretionary use of PGT-A? As in all things of life, one size does not fit all, and PGT-A is no exception.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Contact him at [email protected].

The holy grail of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the delivery of a healthy child. From the world’s first successful ART cycle of in vitro fertilization in 1978 (3 years later in the United States), the goal of every cycle is to provide the woman with an embryo that has the highest potential for implantation and, ultimately, a single live birth.

Embryo aneuploidy is a major factor in the success of human reproduction. As women age, aneuploidy is reported in less than 30% of women aged younger than 35 years but rises to 90% for those in their mid-40s. Intuitively and through randomized, controlled trials, chromosome testing of embryos is a reasonable approach toward improved cycle outcomes and allows for the transfer of a single euploid embryo.

Recently, the phrase “add-ons” has entered the vernacular of editorials on IVF. These additional procedures are offered to patients with the expectation of improving results, yet many have not been supported by rigorous scientifically controlled research trials, e.g., endometrial scratch, embryo glue, and time-lapse imaging of embryos. Where does preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) belong in the IVF armamentarium and why, after 30 years, are there two diametrically opposed views on its benefit? (We will not address testing for single gene defects or chromosome structural rearrangements.)
 

How did we get here?

The first iteration of PGT used fluorescence in situ hybridization to not only identify X-linked recessive diseases (Hum Genet. 1992;89:18-22) but also the most common chromosome disorders (13, 18, 21, X, Y) by removing one to two blastomere cells from a day 3 embryo (six- to eight-cell stage). Despite wide enthusiasm, the technique was eventually determined to reduce implantation by nearly 40% and was abandoned; presumably impairing the embryo by removing up to one-third of its make-up.

Because of extended embryo culture to the blastocyst stage along with the improved cryopreservation process of vitrification, the next generation of embryo analysis surfaced, what we now refer to as PGT 2.0. Currently, approximately five to six cells from the outer embryo trophectoderm are removed and sent to a specialized laboratory for 24-chromosome screening while the biopsied embryos are cryopreserved. Outcome data (aneuploidy rates, mosaicism) have been influenced by the evolution of genetic platforms – from array comparative genome hybridization to single-nucleotide polymorphism array, to quantitative polymerase chain reaction, to next-generation sequencing (NGS). The newest platform, NGS with high resolution, provides the most extensive degree of analysis by detecting unbalanced translocations and a low cut-off percentage for mosaicism (20%). The clinical error rate is approximately 1%-2%, improved from the 2%-4% of earlier techniques.

The phenomenon of mosaicism describes two distinct cell lines in one embryo (typically one normal and one abnormal) and is defined based on the percentage of mosaicism – currently, the lower limit is 20%. Embryos with less than 20%-30% mosaicism are considered euploid and those greater than 70%-80% are aneuploid. Of note, clinics that do not request the reporting of mosaicism can result in the potential discarding of embryos labeled as aneuploid that would otherwise have potentially resulted in a live birth. The higher the cut-off value for designating mosaicism, the lower the false-positive rate (declaring an embryo aneuploid when euploid). While there is no safe degree of mosaicism, most transfers have resulted in chromosomally normal infants despite a lower implantation rate and higher miscarriage rate.
 

Current status

The greatest advantage of PGT for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is its increase in promoting a single embryo transfer. Medical evidence supports pregnancy outcomes equivalent from a single euploid embryo transfer versus a double “untested” embryo transfer.

Only a handful of randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of PGT-A. Outcomes have favored improved live birth rates; however, criticism exists for enrolling only good prognosis patients given their high likelihood of developing blastocyst embryos to biopsy. The only trial that used an “intention to treat” protocol (rather than randomization at the time of biopsy) did not demonstrate any difference in live birth or miscarriage comparing embryo selection by PGT-A versus embryo morphology alone. However, post hoc analysis did show a benefit with PGT-A in the 35- to 40-year-old age group, not in the less than 35-year-old group. All other trials demonstrated a reduction in miscarriage with PGT-A but only as a secondary outcome.

The medical literature does not support PGT-A to manage patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and there is no evidence for improvement in women aged less than 35 years or egg donors (F&S Reports. 2021;2:36-42). PGT-A has been effective in patients wishing family balancing.
 

Controversy

Enthusiasm for PGT-A is countered by lingering concerns. Trophectoderm cells are not in 100% concordance with the inner cell mass, which presumably explains the reports of chromosomally normal live births from the transfer of aneuploid embryos. Biopsy techniques among embryologists are not standardized. As a result, damage to the embryo has been raised as a possible explanation for equivalent pregnancy rates in studies showing no superiority of PGT-A in pregnancy outcome, although this point has recently been refuted.

PGT-A also embraces the “blast-or-bust” credo whereby no embryo transfer occurs unless a blastocyst embryo develops. This continues to beg the unanswerable question – would a woman who did not develop a blastocyst embryo for potential biopsy still conceive if she underwent a day 3 cleavage stage embryo transfer?
 

Future

Exciting iterations are encroaching for PGT 3.0. One method is blastocyst fluid aspiration to obtain DNA suitable for analysis by molecular genetic methods. Another is noninvasive PGT whereby spent media from the embryo is analyzed using cell-free DNA. Concordance with inner cell mass is reasonably good (approximately 85%) but needs to improve. A major advantage is the biopsy skill set among embryologists is eliminated. A criticism of noninvasive PGT is the risk of false-positive results from contamination of aneuploid cell secretion by physiologic apoptotic cells. Confined placental mosaicism can also increase aneuploidy in cell-free DNA thereby contributing to false positives.

Conclusion

PGT-A is robust technology that appears to benefit women aged above 35 years but not the general infertile population. Error rates must be consistent among laboratories and be lowered. Regarding mosaic embryos, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines recommend offering another egg retrieval if only mosaic embryos are available and to only consider mosaic embryo transfer following extensive genetic counseling. Long-term effects of PGT-A on children are lacking. The Cochrane Database concluded there was insufficient evidence to make PGT-A routine.

So, the debate is clear and ongoing – universal versus discretionary use of PGT-A? As in all things of life, one size does not fit all, and PGT-A is no exception.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Contact him at [email protected].

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Among the patient population of long-haulers complaining of brain fog, muscular ache, and other issues, many had mild COVID-19. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.

Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19

Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.

To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.

Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.

She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

A panoply of different syndromes

In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.

Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.

One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
 

Looking for biologic markers

An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.

A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.

Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

The research task ahead

The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.

Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”

Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.

Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Among the patient population of long-haulers complaining of brain fog, muscular ache, and other issues, many had mild COVID-19. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.

Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19

Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.

To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.

Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.

She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

A panoply of different syndromes

In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.

Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.

One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
 

Looking for biologic markers

An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.

A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.

Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

The research task ahead

The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.

Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”

Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.

Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Among the patient population of long-haulers complaining of brain fog, muscular ache, and other issues, many had mild COVID-19. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.

Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19

Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.

To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.

Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.

She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

A panoply of different syndromes

In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.

Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.

One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
 

Looking for biologic markers

An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.

A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.

Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

The research task ahead

The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.

Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”

Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.