Expert Commentary

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Epidemiologic studies conducted in ovarian cancer suggest an association between chronic inflammation and incidence of disease.¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) work to decrease inflammation through the inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase (COX). Therefore, anti-inflammatory agents such as NSAIDs have been proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of ovarian cancer.

Previous studies of this association show conflicting data. The majority of these studies are retrospective, and those that are prospective do not include detailed data regarding dosing and frequency of ASA use.^2-6

_

Details of the study

This study by Barnard and colleagues is a prospective cohort study evaluating a total of 205,498 women from 1980–2015 from 2 separate cohorts (the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II). The primary outcome was “to evaluate whether regular aspirin or nonaspirin NSAID use and patterns of use are associated with lower ovarian cancer risk.” Analgesic use and data regarding covariates were obtained via self-reported questionnaires. Ovarian cancer diagnosis was confirmed via medical records.

Results demonstrated that current low-dose aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.96). This significance was not maintained upon further controlling for inflammatory factors (hypertension, autoimmune disease, inflammatory diet scores, smoking, etc) (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.26). Other significant findings included an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer with standard-dose ASA use of ≥5 years or standard-dose use at 6 to 9 tablets per week (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13–2.77 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15, respectively). An increased risk of developing ovarian cancer also was found for >10-year use or use of >10 tablets per week of nonaspirin NSAIDs (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02–1.79, respectively).

The authors concluded that there was a slight inverse association for low-dose aspirin and ovarian cancer risk and that standard aspirin or NSAID use actually may be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study has many strengths. It was a large prospective cohort investigation with adequate power to detect clinically significant differences. The authors collected detailed exposure data, which was novel. They also considered a latency period prior to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer during which a patient may increase their analgesic use in order to treat pain caused by the impending cancer.

However, the conclusions of the authors seem to be overstated in the setting of the data. Specifically, the deduction regarding a decreased risk of ovarian cancer with low-dose aspirin use given the loss of the statistical significance when controlling for pertinent cofounders. Further, the study authors did not evaluate adverse effects associated with low-dose aspirin use, which would be clinically applicable when determining whether the results from this study should become formal recommendations. Lastly, other important clinical factors, such as the presence of genetic mutations or endometriosis, were not considered, and these considerations would greatly affect results.

In the setting of previous large prospective studies that suggest no association between ASA use and ovarian cancer risk,^4-6 data from this study are not compelling enough to recommend regular low-dose aspirin use to all women.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Epidemiologic studies conducted in ovarian cancer suggest an association between chronic inflammation and incidence of disease.¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) work to decrease inflammation through the inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase (COX). Therefore, anti-inflammatory agents such as NSAIDs have been proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of ovarian cancer.

Previous studies of this association show conflicting data. The majority of these studies are retrospective, and those that are prospective do not include detailed data regarding dosing and frequency of ASA use.^2-6

_

Details of the study

This study by Barnard and colleagues is a prospective cohort study evaluating a total of 205,498 women from 1980–2015 from 2 separate cohorts (the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II). The primary outcome was “to evaluate whether regular aspirin or nonaspirin NSAID use and patterns of use are associated with lower ovarian cancer risk.” Analgesic use and data regarding covariates were obtained via self-reported questionnaires. Ovarian cancer diagnosis was confirmed via medical records.

Results demonstrated that current low-dose aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.96). This significance was not maintained upon further controlling for inflammatory factors (hypertension, autoimmune disease, inflammatory diet scores, smoking, etc) (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.26). Other significant findings included an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer with standard-dose ASA use of ≥5 years or standard-dose use at 6 to 9 tablets per week (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13–2.77 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15, respectively). An increased risk of developing ovarian cancer also was found for >10-year use or use of >10 tablets per week of nonaspirin NSAIDs (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02–1.79, respectively).

The authors concluded that there was a slight inverse association for low-dose aspirin and ovarian cancer risk and that standard aspirin or NSAID use actually may be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study has many strengths. It was a large prospective cohort investigation with adequate power to detect clinically significant differences. The authors collected detailed exposure data, which was novel. They also considered a latency period prior to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer during which a patient may increase their analgesic use in order to treat pain caused by the impending cancer.

However, the conclusions of the authors seem to be overstated in the setting of the data. Specifically, the deduction regarding a decreased risk of ovarian cancer with low-dose aspirin use given the loss of the statistical significance when controlling for pertinent cofounders. Further, the study authors did not evaluate adverse effects associated with low-dose aspirin use, which would be clinically applicable when determining whether the results from this study should become formal recommendations. Lastly, other important clinical factors, such as the presence of genetic mutations or endometriosis, were not considered, and these considerations would greatly affect results.

In the setting of previous large prospective studies that suggest no association between ASA use and ovarian cancer risk,^4-6 data from this study are not compelling enough to recommend regular low-dose aspirin use to all women.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Epidemiologic studies conducted in ovarian cancer suggest an association between chronic inflammation and incidence of disease.¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) work to decrease inflammation through the inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase (COX). Therefore, anti-inflammatory agents such as NSAIDs have been proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of ovarian cancer.

Previous studies of this association show conflicting data. The majority of these studies are retrospective, and those that are prospective do not include detailed data regarding dosing and frequency of ASA use.^2-6

_

Details of the study

This study by Barnard and colleagues is a prospective cohort study evaluating a total of 205,498 women from 1980–2015 from 2 separate cohorts (the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II). The primary outcome was “to evaluate whether regular aspirin or nonaspirin NSAID use and patterns of use are associated with lower ovarian cancer risk.” Analgesic use and data regarding covariates were obtained via self-reported questionnaires. Ovarian cancer diagnosis was confirmed via medical records.

Results demonstrated that current low-dose aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.96). This significance was not maintained upon further controlling for inflammatory factors (hypertension, autoimmune disease, inflammatory diet scores, smoking, etc) (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.26). Other significant findings included an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer with standard-dose ASA use of ≥5 years or standard-dose use at 6 to 9 tablets per week (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13–2.77 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15, respectively). An increased risk of developing ovarian cancer also was found for >10-year use or use of >10 tablets per week of nonaspirin NSAIDs (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27–3.15 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02–1.79, respectively).

The authors concluded that there was a slight inverse association for low-dose aspirin and ovarian cancer risk and that standard aspirin or NSAID use actually may be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study has many strengths. It was a large prospective cohort investigation with adequate power to detect clinically significant differences. The authors collected detailed exposure data, which was novel. They also considered a latency period prior to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer during which a patient may increase their analgesic use in order to treat pain caused by the impending cancer.

However, the conclusions of the authors seem to be overstated in the setting of the data. Specifically, the deduction regarding a decreased risk of ovarian cancer with low-dose aspirin use given the loss of the statistical significance when controlling for pertinent cofounders. Further, the study authors did not evaluate adverse effects associated with low-dose aspirin use, which would be clinically applicable when determining whether the results from this study should become formal recommendations. Lastly, other important clinical factors, such as the presence of genetic mutations or endometriosis, were not considered, and these considerations would greatly affect results.

In the setting of previous large prospective studies that suggest no association between ASA use and ovarian cancer risk,^4-6 data from this study are not compelling enough to recommend regular low-dose aspirin use to all women.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Citation:
Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, et al. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:20-27.

Citation:
Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, et al. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:20-27.

Citation:
Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, et al. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:20-27.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Ezeh and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term combination suppressive therapy on hirsutism, acne, and menstrual disturbances in patients with PCOS and to identify the elements that could predict therapeutic response.

Details of the study

This chart review examined data from 200 nondiabetic patients with PCOS who presented between October 1987 and June 2002. PCOS diagnosis was based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 1990 criteria. During the initial visit, patients underwent a detailed medical history and physical exam, including a modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score and hormonal evaluation.

Treatment regimens. Patients were treated with suppressive therapy that consisted of an oral contraceptive (OC) (35 µg ethinyl estradiol plus 1 mg ethynodiol diacetate), an antiandrogen (spironolactone 200 mg/day), or a combination of these drugs. They were followed every 4 to 12 months (mean follow-up time, 34.2 months; range, 6–155 months), and subjective therapy response was assessed from medical records and by improvements in hirsutism scores.

Study findings. The 138 patients treated with combination suppressive therapy reported higher rates of subjective improvement in hirsutism compared with patients treated with other regimens (89.9% vs 72.0%, P<.0001). They also had a significant objective reduction in their modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score (6.0 vs 3.2; P = .0001). The combination therapy was superior to either regimen alone; the response to therapy for symptom resolution took at least 6 months and continued for up to 60 months of combination suppressive therapy.

Adding electrolysis treatment to the combination regimen resulted in improved patient satisfaction, but the differences were not significant. Patients’ satisfaction with the therapeutic response could be predicted from their pretreatment hirsutism scores or circulating sex hormone–binding globulin levels.

Study strengths and weaknesses

The study’s major strengths are the large number of patients included, the uniformity of criteria for diagnosis, and the prolonged follow-up. This is one of the few studies to report the impact of therapy on health-related quality of life in patients with PCOS and to assess response to therapy with use of objective measures, such as changes in the modified Ferriman-Gallwey score.

However, the criteria used to diagnose PCOS—the NIH 1990 criteria—currently are used less commonly than the Rotterdam 2003 criteria, and they are less inclusive for the diagnosis of PCOS.

The OC pill formulation used in this study contained the progestogen ethynodiol diacetate, which is not used routinely in modern clinical practice. In addition, the majority of patients were non-Hispanic white, which limits extrapolating these findings to other races and ethnicities.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Ezeh and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term combination suppressive therapy on hirsutism, acne, and menstrual disturbances in patients with PCOS and to identify the elements that could predict therapeutic response.

Details of the study

This chart review examined data from 200 nondiabetic patients with PCOS who presented between October 1987 and June 2002. PCOS diagnosis was based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 1990 criteria. During the initial visit, patients underwent a detailed medical history and physical exam, including a modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score and hormonal evaluation.

Treatment regimens. Patients were treated with suppressive therapy that consisted of an oral contraceptive (OC) (35 µg ethinyl estradiol plus 1 mg ethynodiol diacetate), an antiandrogen (spironolactone 200 mg/day), or a combination of these drugs. They were followed every 4 to 12 months (mean follow-up time, 34.2 months; range, 6–155 months), and subjective therapy response was assessed from medical records and by improvements in hirsutism scores.

Study findings. The 138 patients treated with combination suppressive therapy reported higher rates of subjective improvement in hirsutism compared with patients treated with other regimens (89.9% vs 72.0%, P<.0001). They also had a significant objective reduction in their modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score (6.0 vs 3.2; P = .0001). The combination therapy was superior to either regimen alone; the response to therapy for symptom resolution took at least 6 months and continued for up to 60 months of combination suppressive therapy.

Adding electrolysis treatment to the combination regimen resulted in improved patient satisfaction, but the differences were not significant. Patients’ satisfaction with the therapeutic response could be predicted from their pretreatment hirsutism scores or circulating sex hormone–binding globulin levels.

Study strengths and weaknesses

The study’s major strengths are the large number of patients included, the uniformity of criteria for diagnosis, and the prolonged follow-up. This is one of the few studies to report the impact of therapy on health-related quality of life in patients with PCOS and to assess response to therapy with use of objective measures, such as changes in the modified Ferriman-Gallwey score.

However, the criteria used to diagnose PCOS—the NIH 1990 criteria—currently are used less commonly than the Rotterdam 2003 criteria, and they are less inclusive for the diagnosis of PCOS.

The OC pill formulation used in this study contained the progestogen ethynodiol diacetate, which is not used routinely in modern clinical practice. In addition, the majority of patients were non-Hispanic white, which limits extrapolating these findings to other races and ethnicities.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Ezeh and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term combination suppressive therapy on hirsutism, acne, and menstrual disturbances in patients with PCOS and to identify the elements that could predict therapeutic response.

Details of the study

This chart review examined data from 200 nondiabetic patients with PCOS who presented between October 1987 and June 2002. PCOS diagnosis was based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 1990 criteria. During the initial visit, patients underwent a detailed medical history and physical exam, including a modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score and hormonal evaluation.

Treatment regimens. Patients were treated with suppressive therapy that consisted of an oral contraceptive (OC) (35 µg ethinyl estradiol plus 1 mg ethynodiol diacetate), an antiandrogen (spironolactone 200 mg/day), or a combination of these drugs. They were followed every 4 to 12 months (mean follow-up time, 34.2 months; range, 6–155 months), and subjective therapy response was assessed from medical records and by improvements in hirsutism scores.

Study findings. The 138 patients treated with combination suppressive therapy reported higher rates of subjective improvement in hirsutism compared with patients treated with other regimens (89.9% vs 72.0%, P<.0001). They also had a significant objective reduction in their modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score (6.0 vs 3.2; P = .0001). The combination therapy was superior to either regimen alone; the response to therapy for symptom resolution took at least 6 months and continued for up to 60 months of combination suppressive therapy.

Adding electrolysis treatment to the combination regimen resulted in improved patient satisfaction, but the differences were not significant. Patients’ satisfaction with the therapeutic response could be predicted from their pretreatment hirsutism scores or circulating sex hormone–binding globulin levels.

Study strengths and weaknesses

The study’s major strengths are the large number of patients included, the uniformity of criteria for diagnosis, and the prolonged follow-up. This is one of the few studies to report the impact of therapy on health-related quality of life in patients with PCOS and to assess response to therapy with use of objective measures, such as changes in the modified Ferriman-Gallwey score.

However, the criteria used to diagnose PCOS—the NIH 1990 criteria—currently are used less commonly than the Rotterdam 2003 criteria, and they are less inclusive for the diagnosis of PCOS.

The OC pill formulation used in this study contained the progestogen ethynodiol diacetate, which is not used routinely in modern clinical practice. In addition, the majority of patients were non-Hispanic white, which limits extrapolating these findings to other races and ethnicities.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Because of women’s personal preference and aversion, for various reasons, to LARC methods, the current estimated use rate of 17% for LARC methods would increase only to 24% to 29% even if major barriers, such as cost and availability, were removed.¹ To gain more insight into this issue, Hubacher and colleagues sought to determine if LARC methods would meet the contraceptive needs and be acceptable to a population of women who were not seeking these methods actively and who might have some reservation about using them.

Details of the study

The authors approached women actively seeking 1 of the 2 SARC methods but not a LARC method for contraception. They enrolled 524 women into a cohort study in which they received their desired SARC method. In addition, 392 women agreed to be enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing women beginning a LARC method for the first time with a group receiving 1 of the 2 SARC methods.

Importance of covered costs. Of note, the women in the randomized trial had the costs of the insertion or removal of the LARC method covered; those randomly assigned to the comparative SARC arm had the costs of their oral contraceptives (OCs) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) covered for the first year of use. Underwriting the costs in the randomized study was likely important for study recruitment, since 47% of participants who were randomized to the LARC group cited cost as one of the reasons they did not try a LARC method previously.

Satisfaction with contraceptive method. In addition to the differences in continuation rates and pregnancy rates noted, it is interesting that, among women who tried a LARC method and who had some persistent negative feelings about the method, 65.9% would try the method again.

Satisfaction levels were estimated using 3 choices, with “happiness” being the highest level of satisfaction, followed by “neutral” and “unhappy.” At 24 months, the number of women indicating happiness was similar among the 3 study groups: 71.4% for the LARC randomized group, 75.0% for the randomized SARC group, and 77.6% for the preferred SARC cohort group.

Among women who discontinued their LARC method, occurrence of adverse effects was the reason given 74.2% of the time, while among SARC method users in both groups there was no dominant reason for discontinuation. Also, among women who discontinued their method, the percentage indicating happiness was 32.2% for the LARC randomized group compared with 69.9% and 68.2% for the randomized and preference cohort SARC groups, respectively.
 

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study had several strengths. The population from which the study groups were obtained was demographically diverse and was appropriate for determining if women with reservations about LARC methods could have satisfactory outcomes similar to women who self-select LARC methods. Further, the 24 months of observations indicate that, for the most part, satisfaction persisted.

One of the study’s shortcomings is the limited data on the subsets, that is, the specific method chosen, within each of the study groups.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Because of women’s personal preference and aversion, for various reasons, to LARC methods, the current estimated use rate of 17% for LARC methods would increase only to 24% to 29% even if major barriers, such as cost and availability, were removed.¹ To gain more insight into this issue, Hubacher and colleagues sought to determine if LARC methods would meet the contraceptive needs and be acceptable to a population of women who were not seeking these methods actively and who might have some reservation about using them.

Details of the study

The authors approached women actively seeking 1 of the 2 SARC methods but not a LARC method for contraception. They enrolled 524 women into a cohort study in which they received their desired SARC method. In addition, 392 women agreed to be enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing women beginning a LARC method for the first time with a group receiving 1 of the 2 SARC methods.

Importance of covered costs. Of note, the women in the randomized trial had the costs of the insertion or removal of the LARC method covered; those randomly assigned to the comparative SARC arm had the costs of their oral contraceptives (OCs) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) covered for the first year of use. Underwriting the costs in the randomized study was likely important for study recruitment, since 47% of participants who were randomized to the LARC group cited cost as one of the reasons they did not try a LARC method previously.

Satisfaction with contraceptive method. In addition to the differences in continuation rates and pregnancy rates noted, it is interesting that, among women who tried a LARC method and who had some persistent negative feelings about the method, 65.9% would try the method again.

Satisfaction levels were estimated using 3 choices, with “happiness” being the highest level of satisfaction, followed by “neutral” and “unhappy.” At 24 months, the number of women indicating happiness was similar among the 3 study groups: 71.4% for the LARC randomized group, 75.0% for the randomized SARC group, and 77.6% for the preferred SARC cohort group.

Among women who discontinued their LARC method, occurrence of adverse effects was the reason given 74.2% of the time, while among SARC method users in both groups there was no dominant reason for discontinuation. Also, among women who discontinued their method, the percentage indicating happiness was 32.2% for the LARC randomized group compared with 69.9% and 68.2% for the randomized and preference cohort SARC groups, respectively.
 

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study had several strengths. The population from which the study groups were obtained was demographically diverse and was appropriate for determining if women with reservations about LARC methods could have satisfactory outcomes similar to women who self-select LARC methods. Further, the 24 months of observations indicate that, for the most part, satisfaction persisted.

One of the study’s shortcomings is the limited data on the subsets, that is, the specific method chosen, within each of the study groups.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Because of women’s personal preference and aversion, for various reasons, to LARC methods, the current estimated use rate of 17% for LARC methods would increase only to 24% to 29% even if major barriers, such as cost and availability, were removed.¹ To gain more insight into this issue, Hubacher and colleagues sought to determine if LARC methods would meet the contraceptive needs and be acceptable to a population of women who were not seeking these methods actively and who might have some reservation about using them.

Details of the study

The authors approached women actively seeking 1 of the 2 SARC methods but not a LARC method for contraception. They enrolled 524 women into a cohort study in which they received their desired SARC method. In addition, 392 women agreed to be enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing women beginning a LARC method for the first time with a group receiving 1 of the 2 SARC methods.

Importance of covered costs. Of note, the women in the randomized trial had the costs of the insertion or removal of the LARC method covered; those randomly assigned to the comparative SARC arm had the costs of their oral contraceptives (OCs) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) covered for the first year of use. Underwriting the costs in the randomized study was likely important for study recruitment, since 47% of participants who were randomized to the LARC group cited cost as one of the reasons they did not try a LARC method previously.

Satisfaction with contraceptive method. In addition to the differences in continuation rates and pregnancy rates noted, it is interesting that, among women who tried a LARC method and who had some persistent negative feelings about the method, 65.9% would try the method again.

Satisfaction levels were estimated using 3 choices, with “happiness” being the highest level of satisfaction, followed by “neutral” and “unhappy.” At 24 months, the number of women indicating happiness was similar among the 3 study groups: 71.4% for the LARC randomized group, 75.0% for the randomized SARC group, and 77.6% for the preferred SARC cohort group.

Among women who discontinued their LARC method, occurrence of adverse effects was the reason given 74.2% of the time, while among SARC method users in both groups there was no dominant reason for discontinuation. Also, among women who discontinued their method, the percentage indicating happiness was 32.2% for the LARC randomized group compared with 69.9% and 68.2% for the randomized and preference cohort SARC groups, respectively.
 

Study strengths and weaknesses

This study had several strengths. The population from which the study groups were obtained was demographically diverse and was appropriate for determining if women with reservations about LARC methods could have satisfactory outcomes similar to women who self-select LARC methods. Further, the 24 months of observations indicate that, for the most part, satisfaction persisted.

One of the study’s shortcomings is the limited data on the subsets, that is, the specific method chosen, within each of the study groups.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home

Learn more about NAMS: http://www.menopause.org/home

Citation: Raffaelli B, Neeb L, Israel-Willner, et al. Brain imaging in pregnant women with acute headache. J Neurol. 2018;265(8):1836–1843.

Citation: Raffaelli B, Neeb L, Israel-Willner, et al. Brain imaging in pregnant women with acute headache. J Neurol. 2018;265(8):1836–1843.

Citation: Raffaelli B, Neeb L, Israel-Willner, et al. Brain imaging in pregnant women with acute headache. J Neurol. 2018;265(8):1836–1843.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The 2018 meeting of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 6 to 8, featured a talk by Louis J. Muglia, MD, PhD, on “Evolution, Genetics, and Preterm Birth.” Dr. Muglia, who is Co-Director of the Perinatal Institute, Director of the Center for Prevention of Preterm Birth, and Director of the Division of Human Genetics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, discussed his recent research on genetic associations of gestational duration and spontaneous preterm birth and some of his key findings. OBG Management caught up with Dr. Muglia on how he feels the study of the human genome could lead to advancements in the prevention of preterm birth.

OBG Management: You discussed the “genetic architecture of human pregnancy.” Can you define what that is?

The genetic architecture tells us which pathways are activated that initiate birth to occur. By understanding that, we can begin to understand not only the genetic factors that the architecture describes, but also that the genetic architecture is going to be modified in response to environmental stimuli that will disrupt the outcomes. In the future, we will be able to develop biomarkers, predictive genetic algorithms, and other tools that will allow us to assess risk in a way that we can’t right now.

OBG Management: How is gene study adding to the overall knowledge of preterm birth?

Gene study is giving us new pathways to look at. It will give us biomarkers; it will give us targets for potential therapeutic interventions. I mentioned in my talk that one of the genes that we identified in our recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study pinpointed selenium as an important component and a whole process of determining risk for preterm birth that we never even thought of before. For instance, could there be preventive strategies for prematurity, like we have for neural tube defects and folic acid? The possibility of supplementation with selenium, or other micronutrients that some of the genetic studies will reveal to us in a nonbiased fashion, would not be discovered without the study of genes.

OBG Management : You mentioned your NEJM paper. Can you describe the large data sets that your team used in your gene research?

The discovery cohort, which refers to essentially the biggest compilation, was a wonderful collaboration that we had with the direct-to-consumer genotyping company 23andme. I had contacted them to determine if they had captured any pregnancy-related data, particularly birth-timing information related to individuals who had completed their research surveys. They indicated that they had asked the question, “What was the length of your first pregnancy?” With this information, we were able to get essentially 44,000 responses to that question. That really provided the foundation for the study in the NEJM.

Now, there are caveats with that information, since it was all recollection and self-reported data. We were unsure how accurate it would be. In addition, we did not always know why the delivery occurred—was it spontaneous or was it medically indicated? We were interested in the spontaneous, naturally-occurring preterm birth. Using that as a discovery cohort, with those reservations in mind, we identified 6 genes for birth length. We then asked in a carefully collected series of cohorts that we had amassed on our own, and with collaborators over the years from Finland, Norway, and Denmark, whether those same associations still existed. And every one of them did. Every one of them was validated in our carefully phenotyped cohort. In total, that was about 55,000 women that we had analyzed and studied between the discovery and the validation cohort. Since then, we have accessed another 3 or 4 cohorts, which has increased our sample size even more, so we have identified even more genes than we originally reported in our paper.

OBG Management: What do you identify as the next steps in your research after identifying several genes associated with the timing of birth?

The idea is not just to develop longer and longer lists of genes that are suggested or associated with birth timing phenotypes that we are interested in—either preterm birth or duration of gestation—but to actually understand what they are doing. That is a little bit trickier than saying we have identified genes. We have identified the precise region of mom’s genome that is involved in regulating birth timing, but in many cases I have indicated the closest gene that is involved in birth timing. For some of the regions, however, there are many genes involved, and so is it regulating one pathway, is it regulating many? Which tissue is involved in regulating? Is it in the uterus, in the cervix, or in the immune system? The next steps are to figure out how these things are acting so that we can design better strategies for prevention. The goal is to really bring down preterm birth rates by implementing strategies for prevention and treatment that we don’t currently have.

OBG Management: What is the significance of maternal selenium status and preterm birth risk?

Well, we really don’t know. We identified one of these gene regions, a variant near a factory involved in production of what are called selenoproteins—proteins that incorporate selenium into them. (There are about 25 of those in the human genome.) We identified a genetic risk factor in a region that is linked to the selenoprotein production chain. What we were brought to think about was this: In parts of the world where we know there is substantial selenium deficiency (parts of sub-Saharan Africa, parts of China, parts of Asia), could selenium deficiency itself be contributing to very high rates of preterm birth? Right now we are trying to figure out if there is an association by measuring maternal plasma selenium levels about halfway through pregnancy and then asking what was the outcome from the pregnancy. Are women with low levels of selenium at increased risk for preterm birth? There have been 2 studies published that do already suggest that women with lower selenium levels tend to give birth to premature babies often.

OBG Management : What is the HSPA1L pathway and why is it important for pregnancy outcomes?

In our study where we performed genome-wide association, we looked at what are called common variants in the human genome—common variants in general are carried by more people. They had to be carried by a couple percent of the population to be included in our study. But there is also the thought that individual, more severe variants (that do not necessarily get transmitted because of how severe their effects are), will also affect birth outcomes. So we did a study to sequence mom’s genome to look for these rarities, things that account for less than 1% of the whole population. We were able to identify this gene, HSPA1L, which again, as found in our genome-wide studies, seems to be involved in controlling the strength of the steroid hormone signal, which is very important for maintaining and ending pregnancy. Progesterone and estrogen are the yin and yang of maintaining and ending pregnancy, and we think HSPA1L, the variant we identified, decreases the steroid hormone signal function so that it is not able to regulate that progesterone/estrogen signal the same way anymore.
 

OBG Management: Why is this an exciting time to be studying genes in pregnancy?

To understand how gene study can optimize our knowledge of human pregnancy outcomes really requires a study of human pregnancy specifically, and one of the best opportunities we have is to gather these large data sets. And we can’t forget about collecting pregnancy outcomes on women as part of new National Institutes of Health initiatives that are developing personalized medicine strategies. We looked at 50,000 women in our research, but we have the capacity to look at 500,000 women. As we go from identifying 6 genes to 12 genes to 100 genes, we will be able to understand better how these things are talking to one another and better define the signatures of what tissues are being acted on. We will be able to get sequentially synergistic information that will allow us to solve this in a way we couldn’t before.

The 2018 meeting of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 6 to 8, featured a talk by Louis J. Muglia, MD, PhD, on “Evolution, Genetics, and Preterm Birth.” Dr. Muglia, who is Co-Director of the Perinatal Institute, Director of the Center for Prevention of Preterm Birth, and Director of the Division of Human Genetics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, discussed his recent research on genetic associations of gestational duration and spontaneous preterm birth and some of his key findings. OBG Management caught up with Dr. Muglia on how he feels the study of the human genome could lead to advancements in the prevention of preterm birth.

OBG Management: You discussed the “genetic architecture of human pregnancy.” Can you define what that is?

The genetic architecture tells us which pathways are activated that initiate birth to occur. By understanding that, we can begin to understand not only the genetic factors that the architecture describes, but also that the genetic architecture is going to be modified in response to environmental stimuli that will disrupt the outcomes. In the future, we will be able to develop biomarkers, predictive genetic algorithms, and other tools that will allow us to assess risk in a way that we can’t right now.

OBG Management: How is gene study adding to the overall knowledge of preterm birth?

Gene study is giving us new pathways to look at. It will give us biomarkers; it will give us targets for potential therapeutic interventions. I mentioned in my talk that one of the genes that we identified in our recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study pinpointed selenium as an important component and a whole process of determining risk for preterm birth that we never even thought of before. For instance, could there be preventive strategies for prematurity, like we have for neural tube defects and folic acid? The possibility of supplementation with selenium, or other micronutrients that some of the genetic studies will reveal to us in a nonbiased fashion, would not be discovered without the study of genes.

OBG Management : You mentioned your NEJM paper. Can you describe the large data sets that your team used in your gene research?

The discovery cohort, which refers to essentially the biggest compilation, was a wonderful collaboration that we had with the direct-to-consumer genotyping company 23andme. I had contacted them to determine if they had captured any pregnancy-related data, particularly birth-timing information related to individuals who had completed their research surveys. They indicated that they had asked the question, “What was the length of your first pregnancy?” With this information, we were able to get essentially 44,000 responses to that question. That really provided the foundation for the study in the NEJM.

Now, there are caveats with that information, since it was all recollection and self-reported data. We were unsure how accurate it would be. In addition, we did not always know why the delivery occurred—was it spontaneous or was it medically indicated? We were interested in the spontaneous, naturally-occurring preterm birth. Using that as a discovery cohort, with those reservations in mind, we identified 6 genes for birth length. We then asked in a carefully collected series of cohorts that we had amassed on our own, and with collaborators over the years from Finland, Norway, and Denmark, whether those same associations still existed. And every one of them did. Every one of them was validated in our carefully phenotyped cohort. In total, that was about 55,000 women that we had analyzed and studied between the discovery and the validation cohort. Since then, we have accessed another 3 or 4 cohorts, which has increased our sample size even more, so we have identified even more genes than we originally reported in our paper.

OBG Management: What do you identify as the next steps in your research after identifying several genes associated with the timing of birth?

The idea is not just to develop longer and longer lists of genes that are suggested or associated with birth timing phenotypes that we are interested in—either preterm birth or duration of gestation—but to actually understand what they are doing. That is a little bit trickier than saying we have identified genes. We have identified the precise region of mom’s genome that is involved in regulating birth timing, but in many cases I have indicated the closest gene that is involved in birth timing. For some of the regions, however, there are many genes involved, and so is it regulating one pathway, is it regulating many? Which tissue is involved in regulating? Is it in the uterus, in the cervix, or in the immune system? The next steps are to figure out how these things are acting so that we can design better strategies for prevention. The goal is to really bring down preterm birth rates by implementing strategies for prevention and treatment that we don’t currently have.

OBG Management: What is the significance of maternal selenium status and preterm birth risk?

Well, we really don’t know. We identified one of these gene regions, a variant near a factory involved in production of what are called selenoproteins—proteins that incorporate selenium into them. (There are about 25 of those in the human genome.) We identified a genetic risk factor in a region that is linked to the selenoprotein production chain. What we were brought to think about was this: In parts of the world where we know there is substantial selenium deficiency (parts of sub-Saharan Africa, parts of China, parts of Asia), could selenium deficiency itself be contributing to very high rates of preterm birth? Right now we are trying to figure out if there is an association by measuring maternal plasma selenium levels about halfway through pregnancy and then asking what was the outcome from the pregnancy. Are women with low levels of selenium at increased risk for preterm birth? There have been 2 studies published that do already suggest that women with lower selenium levels tend to give birth to premature babies often.

OBG Management : What is the HSPA1L pathway and why is it important for pregnancy outcomes?

In our study where we performed genome-wide association, we looked at what are called common variants in the human genome—common variants in general are carried by more people. They had to be carried by a couple percent of the population to be included in our study. But there is also the thought that individual, more severe variants (that do not necessarily get transmitted because of how severe their effects are), will also affect birth outcomes. So we did a study to sequence mom’s genome to look for these rarities, things that account for less than 1% of the whole population. We were able to identify this gene, HSPA1L, which again, as found in our genome-wide studies, seems to be involved in controlling the strength of the steroid hormone signal, which is very important for maintaining and ending pregnancy. Progesterone and estrogen are the yin and yang of maintaining and ending pregnancy, and we think HSPA1L, the variant we identified, decreases the steroid hormone signal function so that it is not able to regulate that progesterone/estrogen signal the same way anymore.
 

OBG Management: Why is this an exciting time to be studying genes in pregnancy?

To understand how gene study can optimize our knowledge of human pregnancy outcomes really requires a study of human pregnancy specifically, and one of the best opportunities we have is to gather these large data sets. And we can’t forget about collecting pregnancy outcomes on women as part of new National Institutes of Health initiatives that are developing personalized medicine strategies. We looked at 50,000 women in our research, but we have the capacity to look at 500,000 women. As we go from identifying 6 genes to 12 genes to 100 genes, we will be able to understand better how these things are talking to one another and better define the signatures of what tissues are being acted on. We will be able to get sequentially synergistic information that will allow us to solve this in a way we couldn’t before.

The 2018 meeting of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 6 to 8, featured a talk by Louis J. Muglia, MD, PhD, on “Evolution, Genetics, and Preterm Birth.” Dr. Muglia, who is Co-Director of the Perinatal Institute, Director of the Center for Prevention of Preterm Birth, and Director of the Division of Human Genetics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, discussed his recent research on genetic associations of gestational duration and spontaneous preterm birth and some of his key findings. OBG Management caught up with Dr. Muglia on how he feels the study of the human genome could lead to advancements in the prevention of preterm birth.

OBG Management: You discussed the “genetic architecture of human pregnancy.” Can you define what that is?

The genetic architecture tells us which pathways are activated that initiate birth to occur. By understanding that, we can begin to understand not only the genetic factors that the architecture describes, but also that the genetic architecture is going to be modified in response to environmental stimuli that will disrupt the outcomes. In the future, we will be able to develop biomarkers, predictive genetic algorithms, and other tools that will allow us to assess risk in a way that we can’t right now.

OBG Management: How is gene study adding to the overall knowledge of preterm birth?

Gene study is giving us new pathways to look at. It will give us biomarkers; it will give us targets for potential therapeutic interventions. I mentioned in my talk that one of the genes that we identified in our recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study pinpointed selenium as an important component and a whole process of determining risk for preterm birth that we never even thought of before. For instance, could there be preventive strategies for prematurity, like we have for neural tube defects and folic acid? The possibility of supplementation with selenium, or other micronutrients that some of the genetic studies will reveal to us in a nonbiased fashion, would not be discovered without the study of genes.

OBG Management : You mentioned your NEJM paper. Can you describe the large data sets that your team used in your gene research?

The discovery cohort, which refers to essentially the biggest compilation, was a wonderful collaboration that we had with the direct-to-consumer genotyping company 23andme. I had contacted them to determine if they had captured any pregnancy-related data, particularly birth-timing information related to individuals who had completed their research surveys. They indicated that they had asked the question, “What was the length of your first pregnancy?” With this information, we were able to get essentially 44,000 responses to that question. That really provided the foundation for the study in the NEJM.

Now, there are caveats with that information, since it was all recollection and self-reported data. We were unsure how accurate it would be. In addition, we did not always know why the delivery occurred—was it spontaneous or was it medically indicated? We were interested in the spontaneous, naturally-occurring preterm birth. Using that as a discovery cohort, with those reservations in mind, we identified 6 genes for birth length. We then asked in a carefully collected series of cohorts that we had amassed on our own, and with collaborators over the years from Finland, Norway, and Denmark, whether those same associations still existed. And every one of them did. Every one of them was validated in our carefully phenotyped cohort. In total, that was about 55,000 women that we had analyzed and studied between the discovery and the validation cohort. Since then, we have accessed another 3 or 4 cohorts, which has increased our sample size even more, so we have identified even more genes than we originally reported in our paper.

OBG Management: What do you identify as the next steps in your research after identifying several genes associated with the timing of birth?

The idea is not just to develop longer and longer lists of genes that are suggested or associated with birth timing phenotypes that we are interested in—either preterm birth or duration of gestation—but to actually understand what they are doing. That is a little bit trickier than saying we have identified genes. We have identified the precise region of mom’s genome that is involved in regulating birth timing, but in many cases I have indicated the closest gene that is involved in birth timing. For some of the regions, however, there are many genes involved, and so is it regulating one pathway, is it regulating many? Which tissue is involved in regulating? Is it in the uterus, in the cervix, or in the immune system? The next steps are to figure out how these things are acting so that we can design better strategies for prevention. The goal is to really bring down preterm birth rates by implementing strategies for prevention and treatment that we don’t currently have.

OBG Management: What is the significance of maternal selenium status and preterm birth risk?

Well, we really don’t know. We identified one of these gene regions, a variant near a factory involved in production of what are called selenoproteins—proteins that incorporate selenium into them. (There are about 25 of those in the human genome.) We identified a genetic risk factor in a region that is linked to the selenoprotein production chain. What we were brought to think about was this: In parts of the world where we know there is substantial selenium deficiency (parts of sub-Saharan Africa, parts of China, parts of Asia), could selenium deficiency itself be contributing to very high rates of preterm birth? Right now we are trying to figure out if there is an association by measuring maternal plasma selenium levels about halfway through pregnancy and then asking what was the outcome from the pregnancy. Are women with low levels of selenium at increased risk for preterm birth? There have been 2 studies published that do already suggest that women with lower selenium levels tend to give birth to premature babies often.

OBG Management : What is the HSPA1L pathway and why is it important for pregnancy outcomes?

In our study where we performed genome-wide association, we looked at what are called common variants in the human genome—common variants in general are carried by more people. They had to be carried by a couple percent of the population to be included in our study. But there is also the thought that individual, more severe variants (that do not necessarily get transmitted because of how severe their effects are), will also affect birth outcomes. So we did a study to sequence mom’s genome to look for these rarities, things that account for less than 1% of the whole population. We were able to identify this gene, HSPA1L, which again, as found in our genome-wide studies, seems to be involved in controlling the strength of the steroid hormone signal, which is very important for maintaining and ending pregnancy. Progesterone and estrogen are the yin and yang of maintaining and ending pregnancy, and we think HSPA1L, the variant we identified, decreases the steroid hormone signal function so that it is not able to regulate that progesterone/estrogen signal the same way anymore.
 

OBG Management: Why is this an exciting time to be studying genes in pregnancy?

To understand how gene study can optimize our knowledge of human pregnancy outcomes really requires a study of human pregnancy specifically, and one of the best opportunities we have is to gather these large data sets. And we can’t forget about collecting pregnancy outcomes on women as part of new National Institutes of Health initiatives that are developing personalized medicine strategies. We looked at 50,000 women in our research, but we have the capacity to look at 500,000 women. As we go from identifying 6 genes to 12 genes to 100 genes, we will be able to understand better how these things are talking to one another and better define the signatures of what tissues are being acted on. We will be able to get sequentially synergistic information that will allow us to solve this in a way we couldn’t before.