Ob.Gyn. News

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.

I have a long history of being interested in conversations that others avoid. In medical school, I felt that we didn’t talk enough about death, so I organized a lecture series on end-of-life care for my fellow students. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, I have other conversations from which many medical providers shy away. So, buckle up! Here’s a topic that rarely emerges in medical care: sexuality at the end of life.

A key question in palliative care is: How do you want to live the life you have left? And where does the wide range of human pleasures fit in? In her book The Pleasure Zone, sex therapist Stella Resnick describes eight kinds of pleasure:

• pain relief
• play, humor, movement, and sound
• mental
• emotional
• sensual
• spiritual
• primal (just being)
• sexual

At the end of life, both medically and culturally, we pay attention to many of these pleasures. But sexuality is often ignored.

Sexuality – which can be defined as the experience of oneself as a sexual being – may include how sex is experienced in relationships or with oneself, sexual orientation, body image, gender expression and identity, as well as sexual satisfaction and pleasure. People may have different priorities at different times regarding their sexuality, but sexuality is a key aspect of feeling fully alive and human across the lifespan. At the end of life, sexuality, sexual expression, and physical connection may play even more important roles than previously.
 

‘I just want to be able to have sex with my husband again’

Z was a 75-year-old woman who came to me for help with vaginal stenosis. Her cancer treatments were not going well. I asked her one of my typical questions: “What does sex mean to you?”

Sexual pleasure was “glue” – a critical way for her to connect with her sense of self and with her husband, a man of few words. She described transcendent experiences with partnered sex during her life. Finally, she explained, she was saddened by the idea of not experiencing that again before she died. 

As medical providers, we don’t all need to be sex experts, but our patients should be able to have open and shame-free conversations with us about these issues at all stages of life. Up to 86% of palliative care patients want the chance to discuss their sexual concerns with a skilled clinician, and many consider this issue important to their psychological well-being. And yet, 91% reported that sexuality had not been addressed in their care.

In a Canadian study of 10 palliative care patients (and their partners), all but one felt that their medical providers should initiate conversations about sexuality and the effect of illness on sexual experience. They felt that this communication should be an integral component of care. The one person who disagreed said it was appropriate for clinicians to ask patients whether they wanted to talk about sexuality.

Before this study, sexuality had been discussed with only one participant. Here’s the magic part: Several of the patients reported that the study itself was therapeutic. This is my clinical experience as well. More often than not, open and shame-free clinical discussions about sexuality led to patients reflecting: “I’ve never been able to say this to another person, and now I feel so much better.” 

One study of palliative care nurses found that while the nurses acknowledged the importance of addressing sexuality, their way of addressing sexuality followed cultural myths and norms or relied on their own experience rather than knowledge-based guidelines. Why? One explanation could be that clinicians raised and educated in North America probably did not get adequate training on this topic. We need to do better. 

Second, cultural concepts that equate sexuality with healthy and able bodies who are partnered, young, cisgender, and heterosexual make it hard to conceive of how to relate sexuality to other bodies. We’ve been steeped in the biases of our culture.

Some medical providers avoid the topic because they feel vulnerable, fearful that a conversation about sexuality with a patient will reveal something about themselves. Others may simply deny the possibility that sexual function changes in the face of serious illness or that this could be a priority for their patients. Of course, we have a million other things to talk about – I get it.

Views on sex and sexuality affect how clinicians approach these conversations as well. A study of palliative care professionals described themes among those who did and did not address the topic. The professionals who did not discuss sexuality endorsed a narrow definition of sex based on genital sexual acts between two partners, usually heterosexual. Among these clinicians, when the issue came up, patients had raised the topic. They talked about sex using jokes and euphemisms (“are you still enjoying ‘good moments’ with your partner?”), perhaps to ease their own discomfort.

On the other hand, professionals who more frequently discussed sexuality with their patients endorsed a more holistic concept of sexuality: including genital and nongenital contact as well as nonphysical components like verbal communication and emotions. These clinicians found sexuality applicable to all individuals across the lifespan. They were more likely to initiate discussions about the effect of medications or illness on sexual function and address the need for equipment, such as a larger hospital bed.

I’m hoping that you might one day find yourself in the second group. Our patients at the end of life need our help in accessing the full range of pleasure in their lives. We need better medical education on how to help with sexual concerns when they arise (an article for another day), but we can start right now by simply initiating open, shame-free sexual health conversations. This is often the most important therapeutic intervention.

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have a long history of being interested in conversations that others avoid. In medical school, I felt that we didn’t talk enough about death, so I organized a lecture series on end-of-life care for my fellow students. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, I have other conversations from which many medical providers shy away. So, buckle up! Here’s a topic that rarely emerges in medical care: sexuality at the end of life.

A key question in palliative care is: How do you want to live the life you have left? And where does the wide range of human pleasures fit in? In her book The Pleasure Zone, sex therapist Stella Resnick describes eight kinds of pleasure:

• pain relief
• play, humor, movement, and sound
• mental
• emotional
• sensual
• spiritual
• primal (just being)
• sexual

At the end of life, both medically and culturally, we pay attention to many of these pleasures. But sexuality is often ignored.

Sexuality – which can be defined as the experience of oneself as a sexual being – may include how sex is experienced in relationships or with oneself, sexual orientation, body image, gender expression and identity, as well as sexual satisfaction and pleasure. People may have different priorities at different times regarding their sexuality, but sexuality is a key aspect of feeling fully alive and human across the lifespan. At the end of life, sexuality, sexual expression, and physical connection may play even more important roles than previously.
 

‘I just want to be able to have sex with my husband again’

Z was a 75-year-old woman who came to me for help with vaginal stenosis. Her cancer treatments were not going well. I asked her one of my typical questions: “What does sex mean to you?”

Sexual pleasure was “glue” – a critical way for her to connect with her sense of self and with her husband, a man of few words. She described transcendent experiences with partnered sex during her life. Finally, she explained, she was saddened by the idea of not experiencing that again before she died. 

As medical providers, we don’t all need to be sex experts, but our patients should be able to have open and shame-free conversations with us about these issues at all stages of life. Up to 86% of palliative care patients want the chance to discuss their sexual concerns with a skilled clinician, and many consider this issue important to their psychological well-being. And yet, 91% reported that sexuality had not been addressed in their care.

In a Canadian study of 10 palliative care patients (and their partners), all but one felt that their medical providers should initiate conversations about sexuality and the effect of illness on sexual experience. They felt that this communication should be an integral component of care. The one person who disagreed said it was appropriate for clinicians to ask patients whether they wanted to talk about sexuality.

Before this study, sexuality had been discussed with only one participant. Here’s the magic part: Several of the patients reported that the study itself was therapeutic. This is my clinical experience as well. More often than not, open and shame-free clinical discussions about sexuality led to patients reflecting: “I’ve never been able to say this to another person, and now I feel so much better.” 

One study of palliative care nurses found that while the nurses acknowledged the importance of addressing sexuality, their way of addressing sexuality followed cultural myths and norms or relied on their own experience rather than knowledge-based guidelines. Why? One explanation could be that clinicians raised and educated in North America probably did not get adequate training on this topic. We need to do better. 

Second, cultural concepts that equate sexuality with healthy and able bodies who are partnered, young, cisgender, and heterosexual make it hard to conceive of how to relate sexuality to other bodies. We’ve been steeped in the biases of our culture.

Some medical providers avoid the topic because they feel vulnerable, fearful that a conversation about sexuality with a patient will reveal something about themselves. Others may simply deny the possibility that sexual function changes in the face of serious illness or that this could be a priority for their patients. Of course, we have a million other things to talk about – I get it.

Views on sex and sexuality affect how clinicians approach these conversations as well. A study of palliative care professionals described themes among those who did and did not address the topic. The professionals who did not discuss sexuality endorsed a narrow definition of sex based on genital sexual acts between two partners, usually heterosexual. Among these clinicians, when the issue came up, patients had raised the topic. They talked about sex using jokes and euphemisms (“are you still enjoying ‘good moments’ with your partner?”), perhaps to ease their own discomfort.

On the other hand, professionals who more frequently discussed sexuality with their patients endorsed a more holistic concept of sexuality: including genital and nongenital contact as well as nonphysical components like verbal communication and emotions. These clinicians found sexuality applicable to all individuals across the lifespan. They were more likely to initiate discussions about the effect of medications or illness on sexual function and address the need for equipment, such as a larger hospital bed.

I’m hoping that you might one day find yourself in the second group. Our patients at the end of life need our help in accessing the full range of pleasure in their lives. We need better medical education on how to help with sexual concerns when they arise (an article for another day), but we can start right now by simply initiating open, shame-free sexual health conversations. This is often the most important therapeutic intervention.

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have a long history of being interested in conversations that others avoid. In medical school, I felt that we didn’t talk enough about death, so I organized a lecture series on end-of-life care for my fellow students. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, I have other conversations from which many medical providers shy away. So, buckle up! Here’s a topic that rarely emerges in medical care: sexuality at the end of life.

A key question in palliative care is: How do you want to live the life you have left? And where does the wide range of human pleasures fit in? In her book The Pleasure Zone, sex therapist Stella Resnick describes eight kinds of pleasure:

• pain relief
• play, humor, movement, and sound
• mental
• emotional
• sensual
• spiritual
• primal (just being)
• sexual

At the end of life, both medically and culturally, we pay attention to many of these pleasures. But sexuality is often ignored.

Sexuality – which can be defined as the experience of oneself as a sexual being – may include how sex is experienced in relationships or with oneself, sexual orientation, body image, gender expression and identity, as well as sexual satisfaction and pleasure. People may have different priorities at different times regarding their sexuality, but sexuality is a key aspect of feeling fully alive and human across the lifespan. At the end of life, sexuality, sexual expression, and physical connection may play even more important roles than previously.
 

‘I just want to be able to have sex with my husband again’

Z was a 75-year-old woman who came to me for help with vaginal stenosis. Her cancer treatments were not going well. I asked her one of my typical questions: “What does sex mean to you?”

Sexual pleasure was “glue” – a critical way for her to connect with her sense of self and with her husband, a man of few words. She described transcendent experiences with partnered sex during her life. Finally, she explained, she was saddened by the idea of not experiencing that again before she died. 

As medical providers, we don’t all need to be sex experts, but our patients should be able to have open and shame-free conversations with us about these issues at all stages of life. Up to 86% of palliative care patients want the chance to discuss their sexual concerns with a skilled clinician, and many consider this issue important to their psychological well-being. And yet, 91% reported that sexuality had not been addressed in their care.

In a Canadian study of 10 palliative care patients (and their partners), all but one felt that their medical providers should initiate conversations about sexuality and the effect of illness on sexual experience. They felt that this communication should be an integral component of care. The one person who disagreed said it was appropriate for clinicians to ask patients whether they wanted to talk about sexuality.

Before this study, sexuality had been discussed with only one participant. Here’s the magic part: Several of the patients reported that the study itself was therapeutic. This is my clinical experience as well. More often than not, open and shame-free clinical discussions about sexuality led to patients reflecting: “I’ve never been able to say this to another person, and now I feel so much better.” 

One study of palliative care nurses found that while the nurses acknowledged the importance of addressing sexuality, their way of addressing sexuality followed cultural myths and norms or relied on their own experience rather than knowledge-based guidelines. Why? One explanation could be that clinicians raised and educated in North America probably did not get adequate training on this topic. We need to do better. 

Second, cultural concepts that equate sexuality with healthy and able bodies who are partnered, young, cisgender, and heterosexual make it hard to conceive of how to relate sexuality to other bodies. We’ve been steeped in the biases of our culture.

Some medical providers avoid the topic because they feel vulnerable, fearful that a conversation about sexuality with a patient will reveal something about themselves. Others may simply deny the possibility that sexual function changes in the face of serious illness or that this could be a priority for their patients. Of course, we have a million other things to talk about – I get it.

Views on sex and sexuality affect how clinicians approach these conversations as well. A study of palliative care professionals described themes among those who did and did not address the topic. The professionals who did not discuss sexuality endorsed a narrow definition of sex based on genital sexual acts between two partners, usually heterosexual. Among these clinicians, when the issue came up, patients had raised the topic. They talked about sex using jokes and euphemisms (“are you still enjoying ‘good moments’ with your partner?”), perhaps to ease their own discomfort.

On the other hand, professionals who more frequently discussed sexuality with their patients endorsed a more holistic concept of sexuality: including genital and nongenital contact as well as nonphysical components like verbal communication and emotions. These clinicians found sexuality applicable to all individuals across the lifespan. They were more likely to initiate discussions about the effect of medications or illness on sexual function and address the need for equipment, such as a larger hospital bed.

I’m hoping that you might one day find yourself in the second group. Our patients at the end of life need our help in accessing the full range of pleasure in their lives. We need better medical education on how to help with sexual concerns when they arise (an article for another day), but we can start right now by simply initiating open, shame-free sexual health conversations. This is often the most important therapeutic intervention.

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – In pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), those with ill-timed pregnancies had poorer pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia and preterm birth.

Women with autoimmune conditions are at an increased risk for pregnancy complications, including pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, and increased need for cesarean delivery, said Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who is focused on reproductive rheumatology. “The natural question, both clinically and from a research perspective, is: ‘What can we do in order to mitigate or minimize these complications?’ ” she said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

While research suggests that patients who plan their pregnancies during times of well-controlled disease have the “best chances of improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Sims and colleagues wanted to quantify how planning for pregnancy affected reproductive outcomes.

Dr. Sims recruited pregnant women with SLE and assessed if the women were medically optimized for pregnancy, if the pregnancy was intended, or both. Intended pregnancy was assessed by using a validated self-reported survey called the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. Pregnant women were considered “medically optimized” for pregnancy if they were not on teratogenic medication, had continued pregnancy-compatible SLE medications, and had a urine protein-creatinine ratio of less than 1 gram in the 6 months prior to or during the first trimester. Intended pregnancies that were medically optimized were classified as “well timed.”

Of the 115 women enrolled in the study, about half had well-timed pregnancies, 20% were neither intended nor medically optimized, 17% were not intended but medically optimized, and 13% were intended but not medically optimized.

Women with ill-timed pregnancy – either not medically optimized and/or unintended – were generally younger and more likely to be single, on Medicare or Medicaid, and on income of less than $50,000 per year.

Ill-timed pregnancies had higher rates of mycophenolate exposure and higher physician-reported SLE disease activity. While patient-reported SLE activity was higher in patients who were not personally ready for pregnancy, in patients who had an intended pregnancy, there was no difference in self-reported SLE activity between those that were medically optimized and those not medically optimized.

“About a third of our patients are actually underestimating their true disease activity level when they are preparing for pregnancy,” Dr. Sims said. For example, while persistent proteinuria in a patient would drive up physician assessment of disease activity, the patient may not be experiencing any symptoms and is unaware of her condition.

In terms of pregnancy outcomes, women with unintended pregnancies had a 2.5 times higher incidence of preeclampsia, compared with those with intended pregnancies. Patients with unplanned pregnancies were also significantly more likely to experience stillbirth.

Women who were not medically optimized for pregnancy were three times as likely to experience preterm birth and preeclampsia compared with those with optimized pregnancies.

These outcomes drive home the importance of optimizing patients for pregnancy, Dr. Sims said, and effectively communicating this importance to patients, especially when they might not be perceiving their disease activity.

The study’s findings show providers “what we thought we knew, which is that there are some patients that are not as aware of their risk,” commented Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “It brings home the importance of counselling our patients about contraception [as well as] the importance of planning.”

Dr. Sims added that it is “crucial” to make this information easily accessible and digestible to patients. One important resource she mentioned is the HOP-STEP program, which stands for Healthy Outcomes in Pregnancy with SLE Through Education of Providers. The program, directed by researchers at Duke University, is designed to improve pregnancy planning in people with lupus. Direct-to-patient resources are key, she said, as patients can often be nervous to ask about pregnancy planning during appointments.

“They won’t want to bring a pregnancy with me in clinic because they’re afraid I’m just going to say, ‘don’t do it,’ ” Dr. Sims said. “But we are making decisions with the patient. Our patients are not asking for permission, but telling us what they want, and we need to meet them where they are at.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), those with ill-timed pregnancies had poorer pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia and preterm birth.

Women with autoimmune conditions are at an increased risk for pregnancy complications, including pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, and increased need for cesarean delivery, said Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who is focused on reproductive rheumatology. “The natural question, both clinically and from a research perspective, is: ‘What can we do in order to mitigate or minimize these complications?’ ” she said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

While research suggests that patients who plan their pregnancies during times of well-controlled disease have the “best chances of improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Sims and colleagues wanted to quantify how planning for pregnancy affected reproductive outcomes.

Dr. Sims recruited pregnant women with SLE and assessed if the women were medically optimized for pregnancy, if the pregnancy was intended, or both. Intended pregnancy was assessed by using a validated self-reported survey called the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. Pregnant women were considered “medically optimized” for pregnancy if they were not on teratogenic medication, had continued pregnancy-compatible SLE medications, and had a urine protein-creatinine ratio of less than 1 gram in the 6 months prior to or during the first trimester. Intended pregnancies that were medically optimized were classified as “well timed.”

Of the 115 women enrolled in the study, about half had well-timed pregnancies, 20% were neither intended nor medically optimized, 17% were not intended but medically optimized, and 13% were intended but not medically optimized.

Women with ill-timed pregnancy – either not medically optimized and/or unintended – were generally younger and more likely to be single, on Medicare or Medicaid, and on income of less than $50,000 per year.

Ill-timed pregnancies had higher rates of mycophenolate exposure and higher physician-reported SLE disease activity. While patient-reported SLE activity was higher in patients who were not personally ready for pregnancy, in patients who had an intended pregnancy, there was no difference in self-reported SLE activity between those that were medically optimized and those not medically optimized.

“About a third of our patients are actually underestimating their true disease activity level when they are preparing for pregnancy,” Dr. Sims said. For example, while persistent proteinuria in a patient would drive up physician assessment of disease activity, the patient may not be experiencing any symptoms and is unaware of her condition.

In terms of pregnancy outcomes, women with unintended pregnancies had a 2.5 times higher incidence of preeclampsia, compared with those with intended pregnancies. Patients with unplanned pregnancies were also significantly more likely to experience stillbirth.

Women who were not medically optimized for pregnancy were three times as likely to experience preterm birth and preeclampsia compared with those with optimized pregnancies.

These outcomes drive home the importance of optimizing patients for pregnancy, Dr. Sims said, and effectively communicating this importance to patients, especially when they might not be perceiving their disease activity.

The study’s findings show providers “what we thought we knew, which is that there are some patients that are not as aware of their risk,” commented Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “It brings home the importance of counselling our patients about contraception [as well as] the importance of planning.”

Dr. Sims added that it is “crucial” to make this information easily accessible and digestible to patients. One important resource she mentioned is the HOP-STEP program, which stands for Healthy Outcomes in Pregnancy with SLE Through Education of Providers. The program, directed by researchers at Duke University, is designed to improve pregnancy planning in people with lupus. Direct-to-patient resources are key, she said, as patients can often be nervous to ask about pregnancy planning during appointments.

“They won’t want to bring a pregnancy with me in clinic because they’re afraid I’m just going to say, ‘don’t do it,’ ” Dr. Sims said. “But we are making decisions with the patient. Our patients are not asking for permission, but telling us what they want, and we need to meet them where they are at.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), those with ill-timed pregnancies had poorer pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia and preterm birth.

Women with autoimmune conditions are at an increased risk for pregnancy complications, including pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, and increased need for cesarean delivery, said Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who is focused on reproductive rheumatology. “The natural question, both clinically and from a research perspective, is: ‘What can we do in order to mitigate or minimize these complications?’ ” she said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

While research suggests that patients who plan their pregnancies during times of well-controlled disease have the “best chances of improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Sims and colleagues wanted to quantify how planning for pregnancy affected reproductive outcomes.

Dr. Sims recruited pregnant women with SLE and assessed if the women were medically optimized for pregnancy, if the pregnancy was intended, or both. Intended pregnancy was assessed by using a validated self-reported survey called the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy. Pregnant women were considered “medically optimized” for pregnancy if they were not on teratogenic medication, had continued pregnancy-compatible SLE medications, and had a urine protein-creatinine ratio of less than 1 gram in the 6 months prior to or during the first trimester. Intended pregnancies that were medically optimized were classified as “well timed.”

Of the 115 women enrolled in the study, about half had well-timed pregnancies, 20% were neither intended nor medically optimized, 17% were not intended but medically optimized, and 13% were intended but not medically optimized.

Women with ill-timed pregnancy – either not medically optimized and/or unintended – were generally younger and more likely to be single, on Medicare or Medicaid, and on income of less than $50,000 per year.

Ill-timed pregnancies had higher rates of mycophenolate exposure and higher physician-reported SLE disease activity. While patient-reported SLE activity was higher in patients who were not personally ready for pregnancy, in patients who had an intended pregnancy, there was no difference in self-reported SLE activity between those that were medically optimized and those not medically optimized.

“About a third of our patients are actually underestimating their true disease activity level when they are preparing for pregnancy,” Dr. Sims said. For example, while persistent proteinuria in a patient would drive up physician assessment of disease activity, the patient may not be experiencing any symptoms and is unaware of her condition.

In terms of pregnancy outcomes, women with unintended pregnancies had a 2.5 times higher incidence of preeclampsia, compared with those with intended pregnancies. Patients with unplanned pregnancies were also significantly more likely to experience stillbirth.

Women who were not medically optimized for pregnancy were three times as likely to experience preterm birth and preeclampsia compared with those with optimized pregnancies.

These outcomes drive home the importance of optimizing patients for pregnancy, Dr. Sims said, and effectively communicating this importance to patients, especially when they might not be perceiving their disease activity.

The study’s findings show providers “what we thought we knew, which is that there are some patients that are not as aware of their risk,” commented Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “It brings home the importance of counselling our patients about contraception [as well as] the importance of planning.”

Dr. Sims added that it is “crucial” to make this information easily accessible and digestible to patients. One important resource she mentioned is the HOP-STEP program, which stands for Healthy Outcomes in Pregnancy with SLE Through Education of Providers. The program, directed by researchers at Duke University, is designed to improve pregnancy planning in people with lupus. Direct-to-patient resources are key, she said, as patients can often be nervous to ask about pregnancy planning during appointments.

“They won’t want to bring a pregnancy with me in clinic because they’re afraid I’m just going to say, ‘don’t do it,’ ” Dr. Sims said. “But we are making decisions with the patient. Our patients are not asking for permission, but telling us what they want, and we need to meet them where they are at.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.