Obstetrics

Gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia is associated with a significantly higher risk for neurologic disorders such as migraine or epilepsy in the years following a first pregnancy, new research suggests.

The risk was highest in those with gestational eclampsia, who had a 70% increased chance of developing a neurologic disorder, including a fivefold increased risk for epilepsy, investigators found.

“When consulting women with new-onset neurological disorders, it’s important to inquire about their pregnancy history, as pregnancy complications such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia have been associated with an increased risk of neurological disorders later in life.” Therese Friis, MD, PhD student, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University in Sweden, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Most studies of maternal outcomes after gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia have focused on long-term risks for cardiovascular disease or neurologic complications such as stroke, dementia, and cognitive impairment. And many of these studies were relatively small and based on interviews or questionnaires.

“We wanted to investigate whether women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy also had a risk of other neurological complications, closer in time to the pregnancy,” said Friis.

The new study included 648,385 women (mean age, 28.5 years) whose first pregnancy occurred between 2005 and 2018. Of these, 94% had a normotensive pregnancy, 2% had gestational hypertension, 4% had preeclampsia without eclampsia, and 0.1% had eclampsia.

Gestational hypertension was defined as new-onset systolic blood pressure of ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg; preeclampsia was defined as gestational hypertension accompanied by proteinuria; and eclampsia was defined as tonic-clonic seizures without other etiology accompanied by preeclampsia.

Researchers used linked Swedish national registries that collect data on pregnancies, births, and infant and maternal characteristics. Among other things, they controlled for maternal age, early pregnancy body mass index, education level, and pregestational and gestational diabetes.

The primary outcome was a composite of five new-onset neurologic diagnoses: Migraine, headache, epilepsy, sleep disorder, and mental fatigue (neurasthenia), although one diagnosis was sufficient, from 42 days to 15 years after childbirth. Mean follow-up was 7.7 years.

 

Fivefold Epilepsy Risk

Compared with normotensive pregnancies, the risk for the primary outcome was 70% greater in those with eclampsia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.16-2.50), 27% higher for gestational hypertension (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), and 32% for preeclampsia (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.42).

Researchers also looked at the risk for individual neurologic disorders. There were too few neurasthenia events to generate meaningful results, so this diagnosis was omitted from the analysis.

Here, the study found women with eclampsia had five times the risk for epilepsy (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 2.85-9.89) compared with women with normotensive pregnancies.

The underlying mechanism for this association is unclear. However, said Friis, eclampsia and epilepsy share common pathways, such as neuroinflammation, and women with epilepsy before pregnancy run an increased risk for eclampsia.

“So common underlying pathways might increase the risk both for eclampsia in cases of a seizure disorder and a future seizure disorder after eclampsia,” she said.

In addition, preeclampsia and, in particular, eclampsia can cause irreversible subclinical cerebral infarcts found in areas of cerebral edema, she added. “These infarcts or scarring of brain tissue could potentially serve as foci for later epileptic activity.”

Researchers separated women with preeclampsia (with or without eclampsia) into those with preterm (less than 37 weeks; 21%) and term (79%) deliveries. As Friis explained, women with preterm preeclampsia have a higher risk for acute complications and long-term cardiovascular outcomes than those with term preeclampsia.

Compared with those with normotensive pregnancies, investigators found an increased risk for the composite neurologic outcome among women with preterm preeclampsia (aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.79), but also for those with term preeclampsia (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.38).

 

Common Vascular Component

The study also showed gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were associated with a later diagnosis of migraine, suggesting a possible common underlying vascular component.

“The increased risk of migraine following preeclampsia could be linked to endothelial damage at the blood-brain barrier level and alterations in cerebral blood flow and arterial vasospasm found in eclampsia, but this is only speculation,” said Friis.

The analysis also found an association between preeclampsia and a later diagnosis of headache. But this result likely encompasses several headache diagnoses, including migraine, so “it’s challenging to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms,” Friis added.

The study didn’t consider diagnoses from primary healthcare, which resulted in relatively few outcomes. The authors explained they could only identify the most severe cases; for example, women referred to specialized care.

Another potential study limitation is that Swedish registers don’t include information on race or ethnicity. Evidence shows there are racial differences in the risk for cardiovascular outcomes after preeclampsia.

This area of research is important as most women will experience at least one pregnancy in their lifetime, and preeclampsia affects 3%-5% of pregnancies. Further research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the long-term consequences of this disorder, said Friis.

She added she hopes more therapeutic options will be available in the future for neuroprotective treatment for women with gestational hypertensive disorders.

Asked to comment, Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical professor of neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, said in an interview that this is an important study that includes robust data.

In his opinion, the most significant study finding is the marked increase in epilepsy risk after gestational eclampsia.

“In women who have new-onset epilepsy of unknown cause, asking about having eclampsia or preeclampsia during pregnancy is definitely a worthwhile question,” he said.

Confirming an etiology paints “a better picture” for patients wondering why they’re experiencing seizures, he added.

As with any registry-based study, this one had some acknowledged limitations, “but at the same time, the authors were able to have such a large database that I think this study is very worthwhile,” said Vidic.

The study received support from the Swedish Research Council. Neither Friis nor Vidic had relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia is associated with a significantly higher risk for neurologic disorders such as migraine or epilepsy in the years following a first pregnancy, new research suggests.

The risk was highest in those with gestational eclampsia, who had a 70% increased chance of developing a neurologic disorder, including a fivefold increased risk for epilepsy, investigators found.

“When consulting women with new-onset neurological disorders, it’s important to inquire about their pregnancy history, as pregnancy complications such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia have been associated with an increased risk of neurological disorders later in life.” Therese Friis, MD, PhD student, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University in Sweden, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Most studies of maternal outcomes after gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia have focused on long-term risks for cardiovascular disease or neurologic complications such as stroke, dementia, and cognitive impairment. And many of these studies were relatively small and based on interviews or questionnaires.

“We wanted to investigate whether women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy also had a risk of other neurological complications, closer in time to the pregnancy,” said Friis.

The new study included 648,385 women (mean age, 28.5 years) whose first pregnancy occurred between 2005 and 2018. Of these, 94% had a normotensive pregnancy, 2% had gestational hypertension, 4% had preeclampsia without eclampsia, and 0.1% had eclampsia.

Gestational hypertension was defined as new-onset systolic blood pressure of ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg; preeclampsia was defined as gestational hypertension accompanied by proteinuria; and eclampsia was defined as tonic-clonic seizures without other etiology accompanied by preeclampsia.

Researchers used linked Swedish national registries that collect data on pregnancies, births, and infant and maternal characteristics. Among other things, they controlled for maternal age, early pregnancy body mass index, education level, and pregestational and gestational diabetes.

The primary outcome was a composite of five new-onset neurologic diagnoses: Migraine, headache, epilepsy, sleep disorder, and mental fatigue (neurasthenia), although one diagnosis was sufficient, from 42 days to 15 years after childbirth. Mean follow-up was 7.7 years.

 

Fivefold Epilepsy Risk

Compared with normotensive pregnancies, the risk for the primary outcome was 70% greater in those with eclampsia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.16-2.50), 27% higher for gestational hypertension (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), and 32% for preeclampsia (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.42).

Researchers also looked at the risk for individual neurologic disorders. There were too few neurasthenia events to generate meaningful results, so this diagnosis was omitted from the analysis.

Here, the study found women with eclampsia had five times the risk for epilepsy (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 2.85-9.89) compared with women with normotensive pregnancies.

The underlying mechanism for this association is unclear. However, said Friis, eclampsia and epilepsy share common pathways, such as neuroinflammation, and women with epilepsy before pregnancy run an increased risk for eclampsia.

“So common underlying pathways might increase the risk both for eclampsia in cases of a seizure disorder and a future seizure disorder after eclampsia,” she said.

In addition, preeclampsia and, in particular, eclampsia can cause irreversible subclinical cerebral infarcts found in areas of cerebral edema, she added. “These infarcts or scarring of brain tissue could potentially serve as foci for later epileptic activity.”

Researchers separated women with preeclampsia (with or without eclampsia) into those with preterm (less than 37 weeks; 21%) and term (79%) deliveries. As Friis explained, women with preterm preeclampsia have a higher risk for acute complications and long-term cardiovascular outcomes than those with term preeclampsia.

Compared with those with normotensive pregnancies, investigators found an increased risk for the composite neurologic outcome among women with preterm preeclampsia (aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.79), but also for those with term preeclampsia (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.38).

 

Common Vascular Component

The study also showed gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were associated with a later diagnosis of migraine, suggesting a possible common underlying vascular component.

“The increased risk of migraine following preeclampsia could be linked to endothelial damage at the blood-brain barrier level and alterations in cerebral blood flow and arterial vasospasm found in eclampsia, but this is only speculation,” said Friis.

The analysis also found an association between preeclampsia and a later diagnosis of headache. But this result likely encompasses several headache diagnoses, including migraine, so “it’s challenging to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms,” Friis added.

The study didn’t consider diagnoses from primary healthcare, which resulted in relatively few outcomes. The authors explained they could only identify the most severe cases; for example, women referred to specialized care.

Another potential study limitation is that Swedish registers don’t include information on race or ethnicity. Evidence shows there are racial differences in the risk for cardiovascular outcomes after preeclampsia.

This area of research is important as most women will experience at least one pregnancy in their lifetime, and preeclampsia affects 3%-5% of pregnancies. Further research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the long-term consequences of this disorder, said Friis.

She added she hopes more therapeutic options will be available in the future for neuroprotective treatment for women with gestational hypertensive disorders.

Asked to comment, Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical professor of neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, said in an interview that this is an important study that includes robust data.

In his opinion, the most significant study finding is the marked increase in epilepsy risk after gestational eclampsia.

“In women who have new-onset epilepsy of unknown cause, asking about having eclampsia or preeclampsia during pregnancy is definitely a worthwhile question,” he said.

Confirming an etiology paints “a better picture” for patients wondering why they’re experiencing seizures, he added.

As with any registry-based study, this one had some acknowledged limitations, “but at the same time, the authors were able to have such a large database that I think this study is very worthwhile,” said Vidic.

The study received support from the Swedish Research Council. Neither Friis nor Vidic had relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia is associated with a significantly higher risk for neurologic disorders such as migraine or epilepsy in the years following a first pregnancy, new research suggests.

The risk was highest in those with gestational eclampsia, who had a 70% increased chance of developing a neurologic disorder, including a fivefold increased risk for epilepsy, investigators found.

“When consulting women with new-onset neurological disorders, it’s important to inquire about their pregnancy history, as pregnancy complications such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia have been associated with an increased risk of neurological disorders later in life.” Therese Friis, MD, PhD student, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University in Sweden, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

Most studies of maternal outcomes after gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia have focused on long-term risks for cardiovascular disease or neurologic complications such as stroke, dementia, and cognitive impairment. And many of these studies were relatively small and based on interviews or questionnaires.

“We wanted to investigate whether women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy also had a risk of other neurological complications, closer in time to the pregnancy,” said Friis.

The new study included 648,385 women (mean age, 28.5 years) whose first pregnancy occurred between 2005 and 2018. Of these, 94% had a normotensive pregnancy, 2% had gestational hypertension, 4% had preeclampsia without eclampsia, and 0.1% had eclampsia.

Gestational hypertension was defined as new-onset systolic blood pressure of ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg; preeclampsia was defined as gestational hypertension accompanied by proteinuria; and eclampsia was defined as tonic-clonic seizures without other etiology accompanied by preeclampsia.

Researchers used linked Swedish national registries that collect data on pregnancies, births, and infant and maternal characteristics. Among other things, they controlled for maternal age, early pregnancy body mass index, education level, and pregestational and gestational diabetes.

The primary outcome was a composite of five new-onset neurologic diagnoses: Migraine, headache, epilepsy, sleep disorder, and mental fatigue (neurasthenia), although one diagnosis was sufficient, from 42 days to 15 years after childbirth. Mean follow-up was 7.7 years.

 

Fivefold Epilepsy Risk

Compared with normotensive pregnancies, the risk for the primary outcome was 70% greater in those with eclampsia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.16-2.50), 27% higher for gestational hypertension (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45), and 32% for preeclampsia (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.42).

Researchers also looked at the risk for individual neurologic disorders. There were too few neurasthenia events to generate meaningful results, so this diagnosis was omitted from the analysis.

Here, the study found women with eclampsia had five times the risk for epilepsy (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 2.85-9.89) compared with women with normotensive pregnancies.

The underlying mechanism for this association is unclear. However, said Friis, eclampsia and epilepsy share common pathways, such as neuroinflammation, and women with epilepsy before pregnancy run an increased risk for eclampsia.

“So common underlying pathways might increase the risk both for eclampsia in cases of a seizure disorder and a future seizure disorder after eclampsia,” she said.

In addition, preeclampsia and, in particular, eclampsia can cause irreversible subclinical cerebral infarcts found in areas of cerebral edema, she added. “These infarcts or scarring of brain tissue could potentially serve as foci for later epileptic activity.”

Researchers separated women with preeclampsia (with or without eclampsia) into those with preterm (less than 37 weeks; 21%) and term (79%) deliveries. As Friis explained, women with preterm preeclampsia have a higher risk for acute complications and long-term cardiovascular outcomes than those with term preeclampsia.

Compared with those with normotensive pregnancies, investigators found an increased risk for the composite neurologic outcome among women with preterm preeclampsia (aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.79), but also for those with term preeclampsia (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.38).

 

Common Vascular Component

The study also showed gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were associated with a later diagnosis of migraine, suggesting a possible common underlying vascular component.

“The increased risk of migraine following preeclampsia could be linked to endothelial damage at the blood-brain barrier level and alterations in cerebral blood flow and arterial vasospasm found in eclampsia, but this is only speculation,” said Friis.

The analysis also found an association between preeclampsia and a later diagnosis of headache. But this result likely encompasses several headache diagnoses, including migraine, so “it’s challenging to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms,” Friis added.

The study didn’t consider diagnoses from primary healthcare, which resulted in relatively few outcomes. The authors explained they could only identify the most severe cases; for example, women referred to specialized care.

Another potential study limitation is that Swedish registers don’t include information on race or ethnicity. Evidence shows there are racial differences in the risk for cardiovascular outcomes after preeclampsia.

This area of research is important as most women will experience at least one pregnancy in their lifetime, and preeclampsia affects 3%-5% of pregnancies. Further research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the long-term consequences of this disorder, said Friis.

She added she hopes more therapeutic options will be available in the future for neuroprotective treatment for women with gestational hypertensive disorders.

Asked to comment, Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical professor of neurology, Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, said in an interview that this is an important study that includes robust data.

In his opinion, the most significant study finding is the marked increase in epilepsy risk after gestational eclampsia.

“In women who have new-onset epilepsy of unknown cause, asking about having eclampsia or preeclampsia during pregnancy is definitely a worthwhile question,” he said.

Confirming an etiology paints “a better picture” for patients wondering why they’re experiencing seizures, he added.

As with any registry-based study, this one had some acknowledged limitations, “but at the same time, the authors were able to have such a large database that I think this study is very worthwhile,” said Vidic.

The study received support from the Swedish Research Council. Neither Friis nor Vidic had relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Significant complications were common in female patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who underwent fertility preservation (FP) procedures, and 13% required multiple retrieval cycles, a five-center retrospective study found.

Of 46 patients with SCD, complications occurred in 25 of 55 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles, including 29 vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Of 21 post-retrieval VOEs, 19 required emergency department care or hospitalization.

“Baseline sickle cell disease severity is most likely associated with a patient’s risk of complications from an egg retrieval cycle,” study co-author Sarah Cromack, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Both hematologists and reproductive endocrinologists can use this information to plan ahead and anticipate possible issues, check blood counts prior to and after egg retrieval to see if transfusion is needed, and plan close follow-up during stimulation and immediately after egg retrieval to evaluate and treat pain.”

 

SCD Accelerates Decline in Ovarian Reserve

Pediatric hematologist Lydia H. Pecker, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, the study’s corresponding author, said in an interview that SCD is “a disease of accelerated aging” that leads to accelerated decline in ovarian reserve. “The common indication for fertility preservation in SCD is before bone marrow transplant or gene therapy,” she said, although FP can also be offered to other patients with SCD.

According to Cromack, researchers launched the study to expand information about SCD and FP in light of sparse data about outcomes.

All the 46 patients had hemoglobin SS (HbSS, 93%) and HbSβ0-thalassemia (7%) and a median age of 23.7 (18-28) years. Almost all (44 patients) underwent FP prior to curative treatments, and all had at least one SCD-related complication, mainly cerebrovascular disease (16), acute chest syndrome (23), and more than two VOEs per year (31).

Median anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level (2.1 ng/mL), a measurement of ovarian reserve, was lower than the expected level of 2.8-3.4 ng/mL among women in the age range of the patients, the researchers reported. “This is consistent with previous studies showing lower AMH for age in women with sickle cell disease,” Pecker said.

 

Complications in 45% of Retrieval Cycles

“In terms of success of oocyte cryopreservation, the median number of mature eggs frozen was 11,” said co-author and reproductive endocrinologist Jessica Walter, MD, of Northwestern University, in an interview. “Given the average age of 24 years in the cohort, this would give each patient about a 70% estimated probability of at least one live birth from their cohort of frozen eggs. Thus, patients hoping for more than one child may want to consider more than one cycle of egg freezing.”

The rate of complications was “fairly high” at 45% of all cycles, Walter said. “These were mostly complications from underlying sickle cell disease, including unplanned transfusions and admissions for vaso-occlusive crises. Surprisingly, there were very few cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in this young patient group, which may be due to a combination of underlying vascular disease, lower peak estradiol levels, and slightly less eggs retrieved then would be expected compared to an age-matched healthy controls.”

Any FP complication was associated with more than three VOEs in the year before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mean of three VOEs per patient without complications vs six per patient with complications; P = .036).

 

Higher Than Normal Need for Multiple Cycles

Reproductive endocrinologist H. Irene Su, MD, professor and co-director of the Center for OB/GYN Research Innovations at Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, praised the study as “an important report” in an interview.

Su, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the percentage of patients requiring more than one cycle due to cancellation or low oocyte yield — 13% — is “higher than expected, given the young age of this cohort.”

This could reflect the hypothesis that “sickle cell crises and hypoxia adversely affect the finite number of oocytes in the ovary,” she said.

As for the study findings regarding complications, she said the rate “is very high compared to the general infertility or fertility preservation population. It would be good to learn predictors of these outcomes so that fertility and hematology clinicians can work together to stratify risk and supportive services around FP cycles. It would also be good to know if the post-retrieval VOE were unexpected given the patient’s disease activity prior to FP.”

 

Message: FP in SCD Is Feasible, Acceptable

A.D. Mishkin, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and liaison to the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program at NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview that the study “establishes the feasibility and acceptability of oocyte harvest and preservation in a population of patients with active ongoing symptoms from SCD. It also indicates their interest in pursuing fertility preservation in the setting of frequent crises and the potential for management of ensuing complications.”

Mishkin, who didn’t take part in the research, highlighted the finding that half the patients got access to FP via public insurance or research funding. “Even in this population where most women had multiple complications in the year prior to FP, and even among patients who needed multiple retrievals, these patients wanted to go through that risk to preserve their fertility,” Mishkin said. “This is an important finding given the very limited access many individuals have to FP due to its high cost and limited insurance coverage, which is also largely state-dependent.”

There’s another factor to consider regarding SCD and FP: The potential danger of pregnancy.

Corresponding author Pecker noted that “pregnancy is high risk for people with sickle cell disease. There are very high rates of severe maternal mortality and morbidity even in high-income countries. However, some of this is modifiable with routine use of chronic transfusions during pregnancy and with high-quality and integrated expert SCD and expert maternal fetal medicine care during pregnancy.”

The National Institutes of Health supported the research. Pecker reported receiving research funding from Alexion, Novartis, and Aummune and consulting for Novo Nordisk. Other authors reported no disclosures. Su and Mishkin reported no disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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