Obstetrics

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that long-term exposure to air pollution during and after pregnancy increases the risk of postpartum depression (PPD), adding to prior research linking air pollution to mental health issues.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 340,679 women who had singleton live births at Kaiser Permanente Southern California facilities between 2008 and 2016.
• Ambient air pollution exposures were assessed based on maternal residential addresses using monthly averages of particulate matter ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), PM ≤ 10 mcm (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide, and ozone from Environmental Protection Agency monitoring stations.
• Constituents of PM_2.5 (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic matter, and black carbon) were obtained from models based on satellite, ground-based monitor, and chemical transport modeling data.
• Women with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score of at least 10 during the first 6 months postpartum were referred for further assessment, including diagnosis and treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 25,674 women had PPD (7.5%).
• Positive associations were observed between PPD ozone (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09), PM₁₀ (aOR, 1.02), and PM_2.5 (aOR, 1.02), with no statistically significant association with nitrogen dioxide.
• Among PM_2.5 constituents, black carbon had the strongest association with PPD (OR 1.04).
• Overall, a higher risk of PPD was associated with ozone exposure during the entire pregnancy and postpartum periods and with PM exposure during the late pregnancy and postpartum periods.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that long-term antepartum and postpartum air pollution exposure is a potentially modifiable environmental risk factor for PPD and an important public health issue to address for improved maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Yi Sun, PhD, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Postpartum exposures were estimated using only maternal address at delivery, which may have led to exposure misclassification. Potential exposure misclassifications may also exist since indoor and personal exposure levels could not be estimated. Although several covariates were adjusted for, some residual or unmeasured covariates were inevitable due to data unavailability, such as psychiatric history, adverse life events, and marital status, which may affect mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that long-term exposure to air pollution during and after pregnancy increases the risk of postpartum depression (PPD), adding to prior research linking air pollution to mental health issues.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 340,679 women who had singleton live births at Kaiser Permanente Southern California facilities between 2008 and 2016.
• Ambient air pollution exposures were assessed based on maternal residential addresses using monthly averages of particulate matter ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), PM ≤ 10 mcm (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide, and ozone from Environmental Protection Agency monitoring stations.
• Constituents of PM_2.5 (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic matter, and black carbon) were obtained from models based on satellite, ground-based monitor, and chemical transport modeling data.
• Women with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score of at least 10 during the first 6 months postpartum were referred for further assessment, including diagnosis and treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 25,674 women had PPD (7.5%).
• Positive associations were observed between PPD ozone (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09), PM₁₀ (aOR, 1.02), and PM_2.5 (aOR, 1.02), with no statistically significant association with nitrogen dioxide.
• Among PM_2.5 constituents, black carbon had the strongest association with PPD (OR 1.04).
• Overall, a higher risk of PPD was associated with ozone exposure during the entire pregnancy and postpartum periods and with PM exposure during the late pregnancy and postpartum periods.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that long-term antepartum and postpartum air pollution exposure is a potentially modifiable environmental risk factor for PPD and an important public health issue to address for improved maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Yi Sun, PhD, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Postpartum exposures were estimated using only maternal address at delivery, which may have led to exposure misclassification. Potential exposure misclassifications may also exist since indoor and personal exposure levels could not be estimated. Although several covariates were adjusted for, some residual or unmeasured covariates were inevitable due to data unavailability, such as psychiatric history, adverse life events, and marital status, which may affect mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests that long-term exposure to air pollution during and after pregnancy increases the risk of postpartum depression (PPD), adding to prior research linking air pollution to mental health issues.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 340,679 women who had singleton live births at Kaiser Permanente Southern California facilities between 2008 and 2016.
• Ambient air pollution exposures were assessed based on maternal residential addresses using monthly averages of particulate matter ≤ 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5), PM ≤ 10 mcm (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide, and ozone from Environmental Protection Agency monitoring stations.
• Constituents of PM_2.5 (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic matter, and black carbon) were obtained from models based on satellite, ground-based monitor, and chemical transport modeling data.
• Women with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score of at least 10 during the first 6 months postpartum were referred for further assessment, including diagnosis and treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 25,674 women had PPD (7.5%).
• Positive associations were observed between PPD ozone (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09), PM₁₀ (aOR, 1.02), and PM_2.5 (aOR, 1.02), with no statistically significant association with nitrogen dioxide.
• Among PM_2.5 constituents, black carbon had the strongest association with PPD (OR 1.04).
• Overall, a higher risk of PPD was associated with ozone exposure during the entire pregnancy and postpartum periods and with PM exposure during the late pregnancy and postpartum periods.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that long-term antepartum and postpartum air pollution exposure is a potentially modifiable environmental risk factor for PPD and an important public health issue to address for improved maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Yi Sun, PhD, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Postpartum exposures were estimated using only maternal address at delivery, which may have led to exposure misclassification. Potential exposure misclassifications may also exist since indoor and personal exposure levels could not be estimated. Although several covariates were adjusted for, some residual or unmeasured covariates were inevitable due to data unavailability, such as psychiatric history, adverse life events, and marital status, which may affect mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, but this risk is heightened significantly in the presence of obesity, according to new research.

In a population-based cohort study that included more than 1.2 million hospital live births, PCOS was associated with a 5% increase in risk for gestational diabetes. Almost 90% of this association was mediated by obesity.

“Women with PCOS are at higher risk, but it’s only 5% higher than the general population. However, that risk rises substantially with obesity,” senior author Maria P. Velez, MD, PhD, clinician-scientist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Our study highlights the need for counseling our patients about the importance of weight optimization, ideally starting with lifestyle changes like diet and exercise.”The findings were published  in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
 

Major mediator

The estimated prevalence of PCOS is 8%-13%, and affected patients often present with anovulation, hyperandrogenism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and infertility. Prepregnancy insulin resistance is common among women with PCOS and may play a major part in the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes. In addition, PCOS is often accompanied by excess weight gain; about 60% of women with PCOS are overweight or obese.

Previous research has shown that PCOS is a risk factor for gestational diabetes independent of obesity, while other research has shown that obesity has an important effect on this risk.

For the current study, the researchers used causal mediation analysis to elucidate more clearly the effect of obesity on the development of gestational diabetes among patients with PCOS. No previous study has used causal mediation analysis to examine this relationship.

Using data from linked universal health databases in Ontario, the researchers analyzed data on 1,268,901 births between 2006 and 2018. Of these births, 386,748 were associated with maternal PCOS.

The rate of gestational diabetes was higher among women with PCOS (60.2 per 1000 births), compared with women without PCOS (48.6 per 1,000 births). The finding resulted in an adjusted relative risk of 1.05. Obesity mediated 89.7% of this association.

“We hope that these data will inform preconception counseling and gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women with PCOS,” said Dr. Velez. “We have the data now to counsel our patients on the importance of weight management before pregnancy. But we need more resources, such as specialized clinics, to help these patients cope with managing their weight. We can tell our patients to work on their weight management, but they need much more support from the health care system.”
 

Results ‘not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Francine Hippolyte, MD, vice chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Katz Women’s Hospital, New Hyde Park, N.Y., said that the results are “not at all surprising.” Dr. Hippolyte was not involved in the research.

“We do know that PCOS is and should be treated as a metabolic syndrome. It’s a lot more than just infertility or changes or abnormalities with one’s menstrual cycle. It impacts a woman’s risk for diabetes, prediabetes, and abnormal lipid profile, regardless of whether or not she is obese,” said Dr. Hippolyte.

She agrees with the need for specialized clinics to help such vulnerable patients manage their weight.

“It would be great if insurances would cover things like nutritional counseling or have nutritionists on their roster so that patients can easily access that service. Many patients want to do right, especially preconceptually, but it is difficult without having access to resources. Unfortunately, as clinicians, we’re not as well versed in nutrition as we would like to be or should be, so we need a multidisciplinary approach. We need nutrition and weight loss clinics and proper services to really help these patients.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and ICES. Dr. Velez and Dr. Hippolyte reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately 1 in 40 women are carriers of single gene disorders that could manifest as pregnancy complications, based on data from more than 90,000 individuals.

Single gene disorders remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in newborns and children, but carrier screening for such disorders was limited until recent advances in DNA sequencing, wrote Vivienne Souter, MD, of Natera in Austin, Tex., and colleagues.

Identifying single gene disorders in carrier screening also includes the discovery of genetic variants that could affect the carrier parent during pregnancy, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 91,637 female patients who underwent testing via a 274-gene carrier screening panel. The median age of the participants was 32.8 years, and approximately half were pregnant at the time of the testing.

Based on previously published reports, the researchers identified 12 genes with potential for carrier manifestations during pregnancy; of these, 9 had manifestations whether or not the fetus was affected by the genetic condition (ABCB11, COL4A3, COL4A4, COL4A5, DMD, F9, F11, GLA, and OTC) and 3 had manifestations only if the fetus was affected by the condition (CPT1A, CYP19A1, and HADHA).

Overall, 66% of the tests were positive for at least one of the 274 genes; the frequency of potentially pathogenic variants for the 12 genes that could manifest as complications during pregnancy ranged from 1 in 117 individuals for the F11 gene to 1 in 8,331 for the OTC gene.

A total of 2.3% of the participant tests were associated a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in at least 1 of the 12 genes, which accounted for 3.5% of all positive samples, and 2.0% were identified as carriers for 1 of the 9 genes that could affect women during pregnancy regardless of fetal genetic status.

“People of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage were over-represented in the carrier group, representing 6.0% of carriers but only 1.9% of the entire study cohort,” the researchers noted.

Manifestations related to the 12 genes included cardiomyopathy, hemorrhage, gestational hypertensive disorders, cholestasis of pregnancy, acute fatty liver, hyperammonemic crisis, and maternal virilization.

“The reported incidence of pregnancy complications in carriers ranged from 10% to 62% depending on the gene involved, but information was limited for most of the conditions,” and published literature identified management recommendations for 11 of the 12 genes, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of cases received by the laboratory, which might have yielded more women with above-average risk because of family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on further evaluation or counseling after the screening, and the lack of separation of the results according to the specific variant, they said. Also, the study population was limited to those who had access to carrier screening, and may not be generalizable to the population at large.

However, the results support the value of carrier screening, and pretest counseling should inform individuals of the potential identification of genes that might increase their risk of complications during pregnancy, the researchers said.

“Obstetric care professionals should also be aware that carrier status for certain conditions can be important for risk assessment and management in pregnancy,” and post-test genetic counseling, follow-up testing, and clinical management can help reduce risks, which could potentially be identified prior to pregnancy, they concluded.

The study was funded by Natera. Dr. Souter is an employee of Natera.

Approximately 1 in 40 women are carriers of single gene disorders that could manifest as pregnancy complications, based on data from more than 90,000 individuals.

Single gene disorders remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in newborns and children, but carrier screening for such disorders was limited until recent advances in DNA sequencing, wrote Vivienne Souter, MD, of Natera in Austin, Tex., and colleagues.

Identifying single gene disorders in carrier screening also includes the discovery of genetic variants that could affect the carrier parent during pregnancy, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 91,637 female patients who underwent testing via a 274-gene carrier screening panel. The median age of the participants was 32.8 years, and approximately half were pregnant at the time of the testing.

Based on previously published reports, the researchers identified 12 genes with potential for carrier manifestations during pregnancy; of these, 9 had manifestations whether or not the fetus was affected by the genetic condition (ABCB11, COL4A3, COL4A4, COL4A5, DMD, F9, F11, GLA, and OTC) and 3 had manifestations only if the fetus was affected by the condition (CPT1A, CYP19A1, and HADHA).

Overall, 66% of the tests were positive for at least one of the 274 genes; the frequency of potentially pathogenic variants for the 12 genes that could manifest as complications during pregnancy ranged from 1 in 117 individuals for the F11 gene to 1 in 8,331 for the OTC gene.

A total of 2.3% of the participant tests were associated a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in at least 1 of the 12 genes, which accounted for 3.5% of all positive samples, and 2.0% were identified as carriers for 1 of the 9 genes that could affect women during pregnancy regardless of fetal genetic status.

“People of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage were over-represented in the carrier group, representing 6.0% of carriers but only 1.9% of the entire study cohort,” the researchers noted.

Manifestations related to the 12 genes included cardiomyopathy, hemorrhage, gestational hypertensive disorders, cholestasis of pregnancy, acute fatty liver, hyperammonemic crisis, and maternal virilization.

“The reported incidence of pregnancy complications in carriers ranged from 10% to 62% depending on the gene involved, but information was limited for most of the conditions,” and published literature identified management recommendations for 11 of the 12 genes, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of cases received by the laboratory, which might have yielded more women with above-average risk because of family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on further evaluation or counseling after the screening, and the lack of separation of the results according to the specific variant, they said. Also, the study population was limited to those who had access to carrier screening, and may not be generalizable to the population at large.

However, the results support the value of carrier screening, and pretest counseling should inform individuals of the potential identification of genes that might increase their risk of complications during pregnancy, the researchers said.

“Obstetric care professionals should also be aware that carrier status for certain conditions can be important for risk assessment and management in pregnancy,” and post-test genetic counseling, follow-up testing, and clinical management can help reduce risks, which could potentially be identified prior to pregnancy, they concluded.

The study was funded by Natera. Dr. Souter is an employee of Natera.

Approximately 1 in 40 women are carriers of single gene disorders that could manifest as pregnancy complications, based on data from more than 90,000 individuals.

Single gene disorders remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in newborns and children, but carrier screening for such disorders was limited until recent advances in DNA sequencing, wrote Vivienne Souter, MD, of Natera in Austin, Tex., and colleagues.

Identifying single gene disorders in carrier screening also includes the discovery of genetic variants that could affect the carrier parent during pregnancy, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 91,637 female patients who underwent testing via a 274-gene carrier screening panel. The median age of the participants was 32.8 years, and approximately half were pregnant at the time of the testing.

Based on previously published reports, the researchers identified 12 genes with potential for carrier manifestations during pregnancy; of these, 9 had manifestations whether or not the fetus was affected by the genetic condition (ABCB11, COL4A3, COL4A4, COL4A5, DMD, F9, F11, GLA, and OTC) and 3 had manifestations only if the fetus was affected by the condition (CPT1A, CYP19A1, and HADHA).

Overall, 66% of the tests were positive for at least one of the 274 genes; the frequency of potentially pathogenic variants for the 12 genes that could manifest as complications during pregnancy ranged from 1 in 117 individuals for the F11 gene to 1 in 8,331 for the OTC gene.

A total of 2.3% of the participant tests were associated a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in at least 1 of the 12 genes, which accounted for 3.5% of all positive samples, and 2.0% were identified as carriers for 1 of the 9 genes that could affect women during pregnancy regardless of fetal genetic status.

“People of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage were over-represented in the carrier group, representing 6.0% of carriers but only 1.9% of the entire study cohort,” the researchers noted.

Manifestations related to the 12 genes included cardiomyopathy, hemorrhage, gestational hypertensive disorders, cholestasis of pregnancy, acute fatty liver, hyperammonemic crisis, and maternal virilization.

“The reported incidence of pregnancy complications in carriers ranged from 10% to 62% depending on the gene involved, but information was limited for most of the conditions,” and published literature identified management recommendations for 11 of the 12 genes, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of cases received by the laboratory, which might have yielded more women with above-average risk because of family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on further evaluation or counseling after the screening, and the lack of separation of the results according to the specific variant, they said. Also, the study population was limited to those who had access to carrier screening, and may not be generalizable to the population at large.

However, the results support the value of carrier screening, and pretest counseling should inform individuals of the potential identification of genes that might increase their risk of complications during pregnancy, the researchers said.

“Obstetric care professionals should also be aware that carrier status for certain conditions can be important for risk assessment and management in pregnancy,” and post-test genetic counseling, follow-up testing, and clinical management can help reduce risks, which could potentially be identified prior to pregnancy, they concluded.

The study was funded by Natera. Dr. Souter is an employee of Natera.

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

According to research results published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, consuming a primarily plant-based diet is associated with a lower risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
 

The prospective cohort study followed 11,459 women older than 18 years and evaluated their diet from the beginning using a validated questionnaire about the frequency and quality of plant-based foods. The participants had taken part in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2009). From responses on the questionnaire, the investigators calculated the plant-based diet index (PDI) even among participants with an omnivorous diet. A higher score indicated greater adherence to the PDI.

“We wanted to know how one’s diet leading up to pregnancy influences the pregnancy, so we monitored women for virtually their entire reproductive life – almost 20 years – and gained an awareness of their typical diet before pregnancy,” study author Jorge E. Chavarro, MD, ScD, told this news organization. Dr. Chavarro is a professor of nutrition, epidemiology, and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard University’s School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. He researches how nutrition and lifestyle influence reproductive health and overall lifelong health in women.

Analysis of the data from the Nurses’ Health Study II revealed that as the proportion of animal products in diets decreased and the proportion of plant-based products increased, the risk of women experiencing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy decreased as well. Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, in comparison with those in the lowest quintile (relative risk, 0.76). This association was slightly stronger for pregnancy-related hypertension (RR, 0.77) than for preeclampsia (RR, 0.80).

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a 24% lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those in the lowest quintile; the risk of pregnancy-related hypertension decreased in a linear fashion as PDI increased, while the relationship of PDI to preeclampsia was restricted to women in the quintile with the highest adherence.

“It was clearer for pregnancy-related hypertension than for preeclampsia, but a diet made up primarily of plant-based foods seemed to be protective for both,” said Dr. Chavarro. He added that in addition to the problems these conditions cause during pregnancy, both increase the risk of subsequently developing other chronic diseases. “Could it be that modifiable lifestyle factors before and during pregnancy may not only help reduce problems during gestation but also prevent women’s health problems years later? That was the general motivation for this study.”

Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, PhD, a researcher at the Autonomous University of Madrid and an associate professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, told this news organization that the study’s methodology was very robust and that the investigators utilized appropriate statistical techniques for the analysis. She highlighted the fact that they used a validated food frequency questionnaire. She believes the study is also important because of the population group it focused on. “There has always been greater resistance when it comes to the diet of pregnant women, and the same is true for older adults. But we have seen that this type of diet, if it’s a quality diet, may be associated with health benefits.” She did not participate in the study.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto has a doctorate in nutritional epidemiology and public health. She works with large epidemiologic cohorts, such as the cohort of American nurses on which this study was based, and ENRICA, a cohort that is representative of the Spanish population and the population of older adults. She is the author of other studies that, like this one, found an association between a plant-based diet and a lower risk of frailty, both in the study involving American nurses and in a study involving a cohort of individuals aged 60 years or older in Spain (ENRICA-1).

Dr. Sotos-Prieto is also principal investigator on a project assessing the risk of cardiovascular disease based on modifiable lifestyles. For this project, the researchers created a tool, the healthy heart test, that can be used to evaluate diet quality “in 5 minutes, because we all know that doctors don’t have any time.” She thinks this test could be implemented in clinical practice to identify lifestyle behaviors that can be improved, such as by replacing refined cereals with whole grains or increasing legume consumption.
 

Tomatoes and French fries

The greatest benefit of a plant-based diet comes from the diet overall, not from any single food item. That said, these studies use a scoring system to reflect which items are healthy and which are not.

Diet was assessed every 4 years, starting in 1991, using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire that recorded the consumption of 131 foods and drinks during the previous year. The researchers determined the average frequency with which participants consumed each food. Eighteen food groups were sorted into three categories: healthy plant-based foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, tea, and coffee), unhealthy plant-based foods (fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugary drinks, sweets, and desserts), and animal-based foods (dairy, eggs, fish or shellfish, meat, and various foods of animal origin).

Healthy plant-based foods were given positive scores, while less healthy plant-based foods and the animal-based food groups were given negative scores. The consumption of each food group was classified into PDI using quintiles.

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with women in the lowest quintile. There was a negative dose-response relationship between PDI and risk of the disease. “A vegetarian diet isn’t necessarily healthier than a nonvegetarian diet if it’s made up of superfluous foods like French fries and soft drinks,” said Dr. Sotos-Prieto. “The difference lies in the quality of the plant-based foods. That’s what makes the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy diet.”
 

Give up meat?

Dr. Chavarro said that removing meat from his dinner menu 22 years ago was one of the hardest things he ever did. “Now, it’s no problem,” he said. But he understands that there are people for whom changing the diet by replacing animal products with nonanimal products is difficult. But meat need not be entirely abandoned.

“The women in the highest quintile aren’t necessarily vegetarian or vegan, but they consume much fewer animal-based foods than the others,” he noted. He added that vegetarian or vegan diets are not incompatible with a healthy pregnancy. “All vegans know how to get vitamin B12 from supplements.”
 

Diet or weight loss?

Much of the benefit observed in the study appears to be related to better weight control. The body mass index between dietary assessment and pregnancy accounted for 39% of the relationship between PDI and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and 48% of the relationship between PDI and pregnancy-related hypertension.

“Part of the association seems to be explained by better weight control over long periods,” explained Dr. Chavarro. Women who adopted diets with more plant-based foods gained weight more slowly than those who consumed more animal-based foods. “They are different in terms of their weight trajectory over many years. So, part of the association that we observe is related to better long-term weight control. But the other half of the association is attributable to the diet itself and not necessarily to weight.” The authors suggest mechanisms of action such as endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, or blood pressure before pregnancy to explain the association.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto believes that this point is “extremely relevant.” In her opinion, it reveals that controlling weight at the start of pregnancy is important for pregnant women. Weight control may also improve other factors, like gestational diabetes. “I think preventive measures should focus on that. These results show that interventions are needed to increase the likelihood of going into pregnancy with an appropriate weight. And this includes modifying diet.”
 

Generalizable results?

More than 90% of the participants in the Nurses’ Health Study were White, not Hispanic. Can the results be extrapolated to other populations? “The answer: The study needs to be repeated in other populations,” said Dr. Chavarro, “and that’s going to take time. But even without that information, I think we can use this study to inform other populations, regardless of ethnicity.”

Dr. Sotos-Prieto admitted that this hypothesis has not yet been tested in the Spanish population, but she is the author of a similar study that followed nearly 12,000 Spanish adults for a decade using the same PDI. In this study, every 10-point increase in PDI was associated with a 14% lower risk of mortality from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.86) and a 37% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.63). She also believes that the recommendations derived from the study could be generalized to other populations “as long as each country’s culture is taken into account, to see how it can be culturally adapted. If it’s a population that consumes a lot of refined cereals, for example, make small changes to whole grains.”
 

Weighing the evidence

The study has strengths and limitations, owing to its methodology, and Dr. Chavarro himself recognizes that “in terms of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy specifically, this won’t be the last word.” But there is a pressing need to find answers.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization encourage women to follow healthy diets before and during pregnancy. But they provide little guidance on what constitutes a healthy diet when it comes to minimizing the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. “They are quite ambiguous and vague,” said Dr. Chavarro.

These new findings suggest that plant-based diets may be one such strategy, particularly because some evidence was found that these diets may be beneficial for women older than 35 years, who are considered a high-risk group.

“There are certainly many ways to eat healthily, but if we think about these pregnancy complications that can have serious consequences for the mother and the fetus, we might consider this as a healthy diet option,” Dr. Chavarro noted.

But is the evidence robust enough to recommend that patients make changes? “Ideally, there will be more studies,” stated Dr. Chavarro. “There are two ways to understand the problem. One is not making recommendations until you have three controlled clinical trials, which, even with the willingness and funding to do so, will take 15-20 years. But if we have to provide the best available information to those who need it today, I think these are solid results for guiding behavior.

“It’s always better if we can make decisions based on solid, incontrovertible information. But it’s not always available, and you must learn to live in both worlds and make decisions with uncertainties,” he concluded.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto and Dr. Chavarro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to research results published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, consuming a primarily plant-based diet is associated with a lower risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
 

The prospective cohort study followed 11,459 women older than 18 years and evaluated their diet from the beginning using a validated questionnaire about the frequency and quality of plant-based foods. The participants had taken part in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2009). From responses on the questionnaire, the investigators calculated the plant-based diet index (PDI) even among participants with an omnivorous diet. A higher score indicated greater adherence to the PDI.

“We wanted to know how one’s diet leading up to pregnancy influences the pregnancy, so we monitored women for virtually their entire reproductive life – almost 20 years – and gained an awareness of their typical diet before pregnancy,” study author Jorge E. Chavarro, MD, ScD, told this news organization. Dr. Chavarro is a professor of nutrition, epidemiology, and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard University’s School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. He researches how nutrition and lifestyle influence reproductive health and overall lifelong health in women.

Analysis of the data from the Nurses’ Health Study II revealed that as the proportion of animal products in diets decreased and the proportion of plant-based products increased, the risk of women experiencing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy decreased as well. Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, in comparison with those in the lowest quintile (relative risk, 0.76). This association was slightly stronger for pregnancy-related hypertension (RR, 0.77) than for preeclampsia (RR, 0.80).

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a 24% lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those in the lowest quintile; the risk of pregnancy-related hypertension decreased in a linear fashion as PDI increased, while the relationship of PDI to preeclampsia was restricted to women in the quintile with the highest adherence.

“It was clearer for pregnancy-related hypertension than for preeclampsia, but a diet made up primarily of plant-based foods seemed to be protective for both,” said Dr. Chavarro. He added that in addition to the problems these conditions cause during pregnancy, both increase the risk of subsequently developing other chronic diseases. “Could it be that modifiable lifestyle factors before and during pregnancy may not only help reduce problems during gestation but also prevent women’s health problems years later? That was the general motivation for this study.”

Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, PhD, a researcher at the Autonomous University of Madrid and an associate professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, told this news organization that the study’s methodology was very robust and that the investigators utilized appropriate statistical techniques for the analysis. She highlighted the fact that they used a validated food frequency questionnaire. She believes the study is also important because of the population group it focused on. “There has always been greater resistance when it comes to the diet of pregnant women, and the same is true for older adults. But we have seen that this type of diet, if it’s a quality diet, may be associated with health benefits.” She did not participate in the study.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto has a doctorate in nutritional epidemiology and public health. She works with large epidemiologic cohorts, such as the cohort of American nurses on which this study was based, and ENRICA, a cohort that is representative of the Spanish population and the population of older adults. She is the author of other studies that, like this one, found an association between a plant-based diet and a lower risk of frailty, both in the study involving American nurses and in a study involving a cohort of individuals aged 60 years or older in Spain (ENRICA-1).

Dr. Sotos-Prieto is also principal investigator on a project assessing the risk of cardiovascular disease based on modifiable lifestyles. For this project, the researchers created a tool, the healthy heart test, that can be used to evaluate diet quality “in 5 minutes, because we all know that doctors don’t have any time.” She thinks this test could be implemented in clinical practice to identify lifestyle behaviors that can be improved, such as by replacing refined cereals with whole grains or increasing legume consumption.
 

Tomatoes and French fries

The greatest benefit of a plant-based diet comes from the diet overall, not from any single food item. That said, these studies use a scoring system to reflect which items are healthy and which are not.

Diet was assessed every 4 years, starting in 1991, using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire that recorded the consumption of 131 foods and drinks during the previous year. The researchers determined the average frequency with which participants consumed each food. Eighteen food groups were sorted into three categories: healthy plant-based foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, tea, and coffee), unhealthy plant-based foods (fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugary drinks, sweets, and desserts), and animal-based foods (dairy, eggs, fish or shellfish, meat, and various foods of animal origin).

Healthy plant-based foods were given positive scores, while less healthy plant-based foods and the animal-based food groups were given negative scores. The consumption of each food group was classified into PDI using quintiles.

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with women in the lowest quintile. There was a negative dose-response relationship between PDI and risk of the disease. “A vegetarian diet isn’t necessarily healthier than a nonvegetarian diet if it’s made up of superfluous foods like French fries and soft drinks,” said Dr. Sotos-Prieto. “The difference lies in the quality of the plant-based foods. That’s what makes the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy diet.”
 

Give up meat?

Dr. Chavarro said that removing meat from his dinner menu 22 years ago was one of the hardest things he ever did. “Now, it’s no problem,” he said. But he understands that there are people for whom changing the diet by replacing animal products with nonanimal products is difficult. But meat need not be entirely abandoned.

“The women in the highest quintile aren’t necessarily vegetarian or vegan, but they consume much fewer animal-based foods than the others,” he noted. He added that vegetarian or vegan diets are not incompatible with a healthy pregnancy. “All vegans know how to get vitamin B12 from supplements.”
 

Diet or weight loss?

Much of the benefit observed in the study appears to be related to better weight control. The body mass index between dietary assessment and pregnancy accounted for 39% of the relationship between PDI and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and 48% of the relationship between PDI and pregnancy-related hypertension.

“Part of the association seems to be explained by better weight control over long periods,” explained Dr. Chavarro. Women who adopted diets with more plant-based foods gained weight more slowly than those who consumed more animal-based foods. “They are different in terms of their weight trajectory over many years. So, part of the association that we observe is related to better long-term weight control. But the other half of the association is attributable to the diet itself and not necessarily to weight.” The authors suggest mechanisms of action such as endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, or blood pressure before pregnancy to explain the association.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto believes that this point is “extremely relevant.” In her opinion, it reveals that controlling weight at the start of pregnancy is important for pregnant women. Weight control may also improve other factors, like gestational diabetes. “I think preventive measures should focus on that. These results show that interventions are needed to increase the likelihood of going into pregnancy with an appropriate weight. And this includes modifying diet.”
 

Generalizable results?

More than 90% of the participants in the Nurses’ Health Study were White, not Hispanic. Can the results be extrapolated to other populations? “The answer: The study needs to be repeated in other populations,” said Dr. Chavarro, “and that’s going to take time. But even without that information, I think we can use this study to inform other populations, regardless of ethnicity.”

Dr. Sotos-Prieto admitted that this hypothesis has not yet been tested in the Spanish population, but she is the author of a similar study that followed nearly 12,000 Spanish adults for a decade using the same PDI. In this study, every 10-point increase in PDI was associated with a 14% lower risk of mortality from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.86) and a 37% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.63). She also believes that the recommendations derived from the study could be generalized to other populations “as long as each country’s culture is taken into account, to see how it can be culturally adapted. If it’s a population that consumes a lot of refined cereals, for example, make small changes to whole grains.”
 

Weighing the evidence

The study has strengths and limitations, owing to its methodology, and Dr. Chavarro himself recognizes that “in terms of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy specifically, this won’t be the last word.” But there is a pressing need to find answers.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization encourage women to follow healthy diets before and during pregnancy. But they provide little guidance on what constitutes a healthy diet when it comes to minimizing the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. “They are quite ambiguous and vague,” said Dr. Chavarro.

These new findings suggest that plant-based diets may be one such strategy, particularly because some evidence was found that these diets may be beneficial for women older than 35 years, who are considered a high-risk group.

“There are certainly many ways to eat healthily, but if we think about these pregnancy complications that can have serious consequences for the mother and the fetus, we might consider this as a healthy diet option,” Dr. Chavarro noted.

But is the evidence robust enough to recommend that patients make changes? “Ideally, there will be more studies,” stated Dr. Chavarro. “There are two ways to understand the problem. One is not making recommendations until you have three controlled clinical trials, which, even with the willingness and funding to do so, will take 15-20 years. But if we have to provide the best available information to those who need it today, I think these are solid results for guiding behavior.

“It’s always better if we can make decisions based on solid, incontrovertible information. But it’s not always available, and you must learn to live in both worlds and make decisions with uncertainties,” he concluded.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto and Dr. Chavarro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to research results published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, consuming a primarily plant-based diet is associated with a lower risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
 

The prospective cohort study followed 11,459 women older than 18 years and evaluated their diet from the beginning using a validated questionnaire about the frequency and quality of plant-based foods. The participants had taken part in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2009). From responses on the questionnaire, the investigators calculated the plant-based diet index (PDI) even among participants with an omnivorous diet. A higher score indicated greater adherence to the PDI.

“We wanted to know how one’s diet leading up to pregnancy influences the pregnancy, so we monitored women for virtually their entire reproductive life – almost 20 years – and gained an awareness of their typical diet before pregnancy,” study author Jorge E. Chavarro, MD, ScD, told this news organization. Dr. Chavarro is a professor of nutrition, epidemiology, and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard University’s School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. He researches how nutrition and lifestyle influence reproductive health and overall lifelong health in women.

Analysis of the data from the Nurses’ Health Study II revealed that as the proportion of animal products in diets decreased and the proportion of plant-based products increased, the risk of women experiencing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy decreased as well. Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, in comparison with those in the lowest quintile (relative risk, 0.76). This association was slightly stronger for pregnancy-related hypertension (RR, 0.77) than for preeclampsia (RR, 0.80).

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a 24% lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those in the lowest quintile; the risk of pregnancy-related hypertension decreased in a linear fashion as PDI increased, while the relationship of PDI to preeclampsia was restricted to women in the quintile with the highest adherence.

“It was clearer for pregnancy-related hypertension than for preeclampsia, but a diet made up primarily of plant-based foods seemed to be protective for both,” said Dr. Chavarro. He added that in addition to the problems these conditions cause during pregnancy, both increase the risk of subsequently developing other chronic diseases. “Could it be that modifiable lifestyle factors before and during pregnancy may not only help reduce problems during gestation but also prevent women’s health problems years later? That was the general motivation for this study.”

Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, PhD, a researcher at the Autonomous University of Madrid and an associate professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, told this news organization that the study’s methodology was very robust and that the investigators utilized appropriate statistical techniques for the analysis. She highlighted the fact that they used a validated food frequency questionnaire. She believes the study is also important because of the population group it focused on. “There has always been greater resistance when it comes to the diet of pregnant women, and the same is true for older adults. But we have seen that this type of diet, if it’s a quality diet, may be associated with health benefits.” She did not participate in the study.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto has a doctorate in nutritional epidemiology and public health. She works with large epidemiologic cohorts, such as the cohort of American nurses on which this study was based, and ENRICA, a cohort that is representative of the Spanish population and the population of older adults. She is the author of other studies that, like this one, found an association between a plant-based diet and a lower risk of frailty, both in the study involving American nurses and in a study involving a cohort of individuals aged 60 years or older in Spain (ENRICA-1).

Dr. Sotos-Prieto is also principal investigator on a project assessing the risk of cardiovascular disease based on modifiable lifestyles. For this project, the researchers created a tool, the healthy heart test, that can be used to evaluate diet quality “in 5 minutes, because we all know that doctors don’t have any time.” She thinks this test could be implemented in clinical practice to identify lifestyle behaviors that can be improved, such as by replacing refined cereals with whole grains or increasing legume consumption.
 

Tomatoes and French fries

The greatest benefit of a plant-based diet comes from the diet overall, not from any single food item. That said, these studies use a scoring system to reflect which items are healthy and which are not.

Diet was assessed every 4 years, starting in 1991, using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire that recorded the consumption of 131 foods and drinks during the previous year. The researchers determined the average frequency with which participants consumed each food. Eighteen food groups were sorted into three categories: healthy plant-based foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, vegetable oils, tea, and coffee), unhealthy plant-based foods (fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugary drinks, sweets, and desserts), and animal-based foods (dairy, eggs, fish or shellfish, meat, and various foods of animal origin).

Healthy plant-based foods were given positive scores, while less healthy plant-based foods and the animal-based food groups were given negative scores. The consumption of each food group was classified into PDI using quintiles.

Women in the highest PDI quintile had a significantly lower risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with women in the lowest quintile. There was a negative dose-response relationship between PDI and risk of the disease. “A vegetarian diet isn’t necessarily healthier than a nonvegetarian diet if it’s made up of superfluous foods like French fries and soft drinks,” said Dr. Sotos-Prieto. “The difference lies in the quality of the plant-based foods. That’s what makes the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy diet.”
 

Give up meat?

Dr. Chavarro said that removing meat from his dinner menu 22 years ago was one of the hardest things he ever did. “Now, it’s no problem,” he said. But he understands that there are people for whom changing the diet by replacing animal products with nonanimal products is difficult. But meat need not be entirely abandoned.

“The women in the highest quintile aren’t necessarily vegetarian or vegan, but they consume much fewer animal-based foods than the others,” he noted. He added that vegetarian or vegan diets are not incompatible with a healthy pregnancy. “All vegans know how to get vitamin B12 from supplements.”
 

Diet or weight loss?

Much of the benefit observed in the study appears to be related to better weight control. The body mass index between dietary assessment and pregnancy accounted for 39% of the relationship between PDI and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and 48% of the relationship between PDI and pregnancy-related hypertension.

“Part of the association seems to be explained by better weight control over long periods,” explained Dr. Chavarro. Women who adopted diets with more plant-based foods gained weight more slowly than those who consumed more animal-based foods. “They are different in terms of their weight trajectory over many years. So, part of the association that we observe is related to better long-term weight control. But the other half of the association is attributable to the diet itself and not necessarily to weight.” The authors suggest mechanisms of action such as endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, or blood pressure before pregnancy to explain the association.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto believes that this point is “extremely relevant.” In her opinion, it reveals that controlling weight at the start of pregnancy is important for pregnant women. Weight control may also improve other factors, like gestational diabetes. “I think preventive measures should focus on that. These results show that interventions are needed to increase the likelihood of going into pregnancy with an appropriate weight. And this includes modifying diet.”
 

Generalizable results?

More than 90% of the participants in the Nurses’ Health Study were White, not Hispanic. Can the results be extrapolated to other populations? “The answer: The study needs to be repeated in other populations,” said Dr. Chavarro, “and that’s going to take time. But even without that information, I think we can use this study to inform other populations, regardless of ethnicity.”

Dr. Sotos-Prieto admitted that this hypothesis has not yet been tested in the Spanish population, but she is the author of a similar study that followed nearly 12,000 Spanish adults for a decade using the same PDI. In this study, every 10-point increase in PDI was associated with a 14% lower risk of mortality from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.86) and a 37% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.63). She also believes that the recommendations derived from the study could be generalized to other populations “as long as each country’s culture is taken into account, to see how it can be culturally adapted. If it’s a population that consumes a lot of refined cereals, for example, make small changes to whole grains.”
 

Weighing the evidence

The study has strengths and limitations, owing to its methodology, and Dr. Chavarro himself recognizes that “in terms of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy specifically, this won’t be the last word.” But there is a pressing need to find answers.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization encourage women to follow healthy diets before and during pregnancy. But they provide little guidance on what constitutes a healthy diet when it comes to minimizing the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. “They are quite ambiguous and vague,” said Dr. Chavarro.

These new findings suggest that plant-based diets may be one such strategy, particularly because some evidence was found that these diets may be beneficial for women older than 35 years, who are considered a high-risk group.

“There are certainly many ways to eat healthily, but if we think about these pregnancy complications that can have serious consequences for the mother and the fetus, we might consider this as a healthy diet option,” Dr. Chavarro noted.

But is the evidence robust enough to recommend that patients make changes? “Ideally, there will be more studies,” stated Dr. Chavarro. “There are two ways to understand the problem. One is not making recommendations until you have three controlled clinical trials, which, even with the willingness and funding to do so, will take 15-20 years. But if we have to provide the best available information to those who need it today, I think these are solid results for guiding behavior.

“It’s always better if we can make decisions based on solid, incontrovertible information. But it’s not always available, and you must learn to live in both worlds and make decisions with uncertainties,” he concluded.

Dr. Sotos-Prieto and Dr. Chavarro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CASE The TeamBirth experience: Making a difference

“At a community hospital in Washington where we had implemented TeamBirth (a labor and delivery shared decision making model), a patient, her partner, a labor and delivery nurse, and myself (an ObGyn) were making a plan for the patient’s induction of labor admission. I asked the patient, a 29-year-old (G2P1001), how we could improve her care in relation to her first birth. Her answer was simple: I want to be treated with respect. Her partner went on to describe their past experience in which the provider was inappropriately texting while in between the patient’s knees during delivery. Our team had the opportunity to undo some of the trauma from her first birth. That’s what I like about TeamBirth. It gives every patient the opportunity, regardless of their background, to define safety and participate in their care experience.”

–Angela Chien, MD, Obstetrician and Quality Improvement leader, Washington

Unfortunately, disrespect and mistreatment are far from an anomaly in the obstetrics setting. In a systematic review of respectful maternity care, the World Health Organization delineated 7 dimensions of maternal mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, stigma and discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport between women and providers, and poor conditions and constraints presented by the health system.¹ In 2019, the Giving Voice to Mothers study showed that 17% of birthing people in the United States reported experiencing 1 or more types of maternal mistreatment.² Rates of mistreatment were disproportionately greater in populations of color, hospital-based births, and among those with social, economic, or health challenges.² It is well known that Black and African American and American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience the rare events of severe maternal morbidity and mortality more frequently than their White counterparts; the disproportionate burden of mistreatment is lesser known and far more common.

Overlooking the longitudinal harm of a negative birth experience has cascading impact. While an empowering perinatal experience can foster preventive screening and management of chronic disease, a poor experience conversely can seed mistrust at an individual, generational, and community level.

The patient quality enterprise is beginning to shift attention toward maternal experience with the development of PREMs (patient-reported experience measures), PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures), and novel validated scales that assess autonomy and trust.³ Development of a maternal Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey on childbirth is forthcoming.⁴ Of course, continuing to prioritize physical safety through initiatives on blood pressure monitoring and severe maternal morbidity and mortality remains paramount. Yet emotional and psychological safety also must be recognized as essential pillars of patient safety. Transgressions related to autonomy and dignity, as well as racism, sexism, classicism, and ableism, should be treated as “adverse and never events.”⁵

How the TeamBirth model works

Shared decision making (SDM) is cited in medical pedagogy as the solution to respectfullyrecognizing social context, integrating subjective experience, and honoring patient autonomy.⁶ The onus has always been on individual clinicians to exercise SDM. A new practice model, TeamBirth, embeds SDM into the culture and workflow. It offers a behavioral framework to mitigate implicit bias and operationalizes SDM tools, such that every patient is an empowered participant in their care.

TeamBirth was created through Ariadne Labs’ Delivery Decisions Initiative, a research and social impact program that designs, tests, and scales transformative, systems-level solutions that promote quality, equity, and dignity in childbirth. By the end of 2023, TeamBirth will be implemented in more than 100 hospitals across the United States, cumulatively touching over 200,000 lives. (For more information on the TeamBirth model, view the “Why TeamBirth” video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVrSaGk7gc.)

The tenets of TeamBirth are enacted through a patient-facing, shared whiteboard or dry-erase planning board in the labor room (FIGURE 1). Research has demonstrated how dry-erase boards in clinical settings can support safety and dignity in care, especially to improve patient-provider communication, teamwork, and patient satisfaction.^7,8 The planning board is initially filled out by a clinical team member and is updated during team “huddles” throughout labor.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTINS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: Patient response to TeamBirth is positive...

Patients and providers alike have endorsed TeamBirth. In initial pilot testing across 4 sites, 99% of all patients surveyed “definitely” or “somewhat” had the role they wanted in making decisions about their labor.⁹

In partnership with the Oklahoma Perinatal Quality Improvement Collaborative (OPQIC), the impact of TeamBirth was assessed in a statewide patient cohort (n = 3,121) using the validated Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale created by the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. The percentage of patients who scored in the highest MADM quartile was 31.3% higher for patients who indicated participation in a huddle during labor compared with those who did not participate in a huddle. This trend held across all racial and ethnic groups: For example, 93% of non-Hispanic Black/African American patients who had a TeamBirth huddle reported high autonomy, a nearly 20 percentage point increase from those without a huddle (FIGURE 2). Similarly, a higher percentage of agreement was observed across all 7 items in the MADM scale for patients who reported a TeamBirth huddle (FIGURE 3). TeamBirth’s effect has been observed across surveys and multiple validated metrics.

Continue to: Patient testimonials...

Patient testimonials

The following testimonials were obtained from a TeamBirth survey that patients in participating Massachusetts hospitals completed in the postpartum unit prior to discharge.

According to one patient, “TeamBirth is great, feels like all obstacles are covered by multiple people with many talents, expertise. Feels like mom is part of the process, much different than my delivery 2 years ago when I felt like things were decided for me/I was ‘told’ what we were doing and questioned if I felt uneasy about it…. We felt safe and like all things were covered no matter what may happen.”

Another patient, also at a Massachusetts hospital, offered these comments about TeamBirth: “The entire staff was very genuine and my experience the best it could be. They deserve updated whiteboards in every room. I found them to be very useful.”

The clinician perspective

To be certain, clinician workflow must be a consideration for any practice change. The feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the TeamBirth model to clinicians was validated through a study at 4 community hospitals across the United States in which TeamBirth had been implemented in the 8 months prior.⁹

The clinician response rate was an impressive 78%. Ninety percent of clinicians, including physicians, midwives, and nurses, indicated that they would “definitely” (68%) or “probably” (22%) recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. None of the clinicians surveyed (n = 375) reported that TeamBirth negatively impacted care delivery.⁹

Obstetricians also provided qualitative commentary, noting that, while at times huddling infringed on efficiency, it also enhanced staff fulfillment. An obstetrician at a Massachusetts hospital observed, “Overall I think [TeamBirth is] helpful in slowing us down a little bit to really make sure that we’re providing the human part of the care, like the communication, and not just the medical care. And I think most providers value the human part and the communication. You know, we all think most providers value good communication with the patients, but when you’re in the middle of running around doing a bunch of stuff, you don’t always remember to prioritize it. And I think that at the end of the day…when you know you’ve communicated well with your patients, you end up feeling better about what you’re doing.”

As with most cross-sectional survey studies, selection bias remains an important caveat; patients and providers may decide to complete or not complete voluntary surveys based on particularly positive or negative experiences.

Metrics aside, obstetricians have an ethical duty to provide dignified and safe care, both physically and psychologically. Collectively, as a specialty, we share the responsibility to mitigate maternal mistreatment. As individuals, we can prevent perpetuation of birth trauma and foster healing and empowerment, one patient at a time, by employing tenets of TeamBirth.

Steps for implementing the TeamBirth model

To incorporate TeamBirth into your practice:

• Make patients the “team captain” and center them as the primary decision maker.
• Elicit patient preferences and subjective experiences to develop a collaborative plan on admission and when changes occur in clinical status.
• Round with and utilize the expertise of the full care team—nurse and midwife or obstetrician, as well as support person(s) and/or doula, learners, interpreter, and social worker as applicable.
• Ensure that the patient knows the names and roles of the care team members and provide updates at shift change.
• If your birthing rooms have a whiteboard, use it to keep the patient and team informed of the plan.
• Delineate status updates by maternal condition, fetal condition, and labor progress.
• Provide explicit permission for patients to call for a team huddle at any time and encourage support from their support people and/or doula. ●

CASE The TeamBirth experience: Making a difference

“At a community hospital in Washington where we had implemented TeamBirth (a labor and delivery shared decision making model), a patient, her partner, a labor and delivery nurse, and myself (an ObGyn) were making a plan for the patient’s induction of labor admission. I asked the patient, a 29-year-old (G2P1001), how we could improve her care in relation to her first birth. Her answer was simple: I want to be treated with respect. Her partner went on to describe their past experience in which the provider was inappropriately texting while in between the patient’s knees during delivery. Our team had the opportunity to undo some of the trauma from her first birth. That’s what I like about TeamBirth. It gives every patient the opportunity, regardless of their background, to define safety and participate in their care experience.”

–Angela Chien, MD, Obstetrician and Quality Improvement leader, Washington

Unfortunately, disrespect and mistreatment are far from an anomaly in the obstetrics setting. In a systematic review of respectful maternity care, the World Health Organization delineated 7 dimensions of maternal mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, stigma and discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport between women and providers, and poor conditions and constraints presented by the health system.¹ In 2019, the Giving Voice to Mothers study showed that 17% of birthing people in the United States reported experiencing 1 or more types of maternal mistreatment.² Rates of mistreatment were disproportionately greater in populations of color, hospital-based births, and among those with social, economic, or health challenges.² It is well known that Black and African American and American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience the rare events of severe maternal morbidity and mortality more frequently than their White counterparts; the disproportionate burden of mistreatment is lesser known and far more common.

Overlooking the longitudinal harm of a negative birth experience has cascading impact. While an empowering perinatal experience can foster preventive screening and management of chronic disease, a poor experience conversely can seed mistrust at an individual, generational, and community level.

The patient quality enterprise is beginning to shift attention toward maternal experience with the development of PREMs (patient-reported experience measures), PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures), and novel validated scales that assess autonomy and trust.³ Development of a maternal Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey on childbirth is forthcoming.⁴ Of course, continuing to prioritize physical safety through initiatives on blood pressure monitoring and severe maternal morbidity and mortality remains paramount. Yet emotional and psychological safety also must be recognized as essential pillars of patient safety. Transgressions related to autonomy and dignity, as well as racism, sexism, classicism, and ableism, should be treated as “adverse and never events.”⁵

How the TeamBirth model works

Shared decision making (SDM) is cited in medical pedagogy as the solution to respectfullyrecognizing social context, integrating subjective experience, and honoring patient autonomy.⁶ The onus has always been on individual clinicians to exercise SDM. A new practice model, TeamBirth, embeds SDM into the culture and workflow. It offers a behavioral framework to mitigate implicit bias and operationalizes SDM tools, such that every patient is an empowered participant in their care.

TeamBirth was created through Ariadne Labs’ Delivery Decisions Initiative, a research and social impact program that designs, tests, and scales transformative, systems-level solutions that promote quality, equity, and dignity in childbirth. By the end of 2023, TeamBirth will be implemented in more than 100 hospitals across the United States, cumulatively touching over 200,000 lives. (For more information on the TeamBirth model, view the “Why TeamBirth” video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVrSaGk7gc.)

The tenets of TeamBirth are enacted through a patient-facing, shared whiteboard or dry-erase planning board in the labor room (FIGURE 1). Research has demonstrated how dry-erase boards in clinical settings can support safety and dignity in care, especially to improve patient-provider communication, teamwork, and patient satisfaction.^7,8 The planning board is initially filled out by a clinical team member and is updated during team “huddles” throughout labor.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTINS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: Patient response to TeamBirth is positive...

Patients and providers alike have endorsed TeamBirth. In initial pilot testing across 4 sites, 99% of all patients surveyed “definitely” or “somewhat” had the role they wanted in making decisions about their labor.⁹

In partnership with the Oklahoma Perinatal Quality Improvement Collaborative (OPQIC), the impact of TeamBirth was assessed in a statewide patient cohort (n = 3,121) using the validated Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale created by the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. The percentage of patients who scored in the highest MADM quartile was 31.3% higher for patients who indicated participation in a huddle during labor compared with those who did not participate in a huddle. This trend held across all racial and ethnic groups: For example, 93% of non-Hispanic Black/African American patients who had a TeamBirth huddle reported high autonomy, a nearly 20 percentage point increase from those without a huddle (FIGURE 2). Similarly, a higher percentage of agreement was observed across all 7 items in the MADM scale for patients who reported a TeamBirth huddle (FIGURE 3). TeamBirth’s effect has been observed across surveys and multiple validated metrics.

Continue to: Patient testimonials...

Patient testimonials

The following testimonials were obtained from a TeamBirth survey that patients in participating Massachusetts hospitals completed in the postpartum unit prior to discharge.

According to one patient, “TeamBirth is great, feels like all obstacles are covered by multiple people with many talents, expertise. Feels like mom is part of the process, much different than my delivery 2 years ago when I felt like things were decided for me/I was ‘told’ what we were doing and questioned if I felt uneasy about it…. We felt safe and like all things were covered no matter what may happen.”

Another patient, also at a Massachusetts hospital, offered these comments about TeamBirth: “The entire staff was very genuine and my experience the best it could be. They deserve updated whiteboards in every room. I found them to be very useful.”

The clinician perspective

To be certain, clinician workflow must be a consideration for any practice change. The feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the TeamBirth model to clinicians was validated through a study at 4 community hospitals across the United States in which TeamBirth had been implemented in the 8 months prior.⁹

The clinician response rate was an impressive 78%. Ninety percent of clinicians, including physicians, midwives, and nurses, indicated that they would “definitely” (68%) or “probably” (22%) recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. None of the clinicians surveyed (n = 375) reported that TeamBirth negatively impacted care delivery.⁹

Obstetricians also provided qualitative commentary, noting that, while at times huddling infringed on efficiency, it also enhanced staff fulfillment. An obstetrician at a Massachusetts hospital observed, “Overall I think [TeamBirth is] helpful in slowing us down a little bit to really make sure that we’re providing the human part of the care, like the communication, and not just the medical care. And I think most providers value the human part and the communication. You know, we all think most providers value good communication with the patients, but when you’re in the middle of running around doing a bunch of stuff, you don’t always remember to prioritize it. And I think that at the end of the day…when you know you’ve communicated well with your patients, you end up feeling better about what you’re doing.”

As with most cross-sectional survey studies, selection bias remains an important caveat; patients and providers may decide to complete or not complete voluntary surveys based on particularly positive or negative experiences.

Metrics aside, obstetricians have an ethical duty to provide dignified and safe care, both physically and psychologically. Collectively, as a specialty, we share the responsibility to mitigate maternal mistreatment. As individuals, we can prevent perpetuation of birth trauma and foster healing and empowerment, one patient at a time, by employing tenets of TeamBirth.

Steps for implementing the TeamBirth model

To incorporate TeamBirth into your practice:

• Make patients the “team captain” and center them as the primary decision maker.
• Elicit patient preferences and subjective experiences to develop a collaborative plan on admission and when changes occur in clinical status.
• Round with and utilize the expertise of the full care team—nurse and midwife or obstetrician, as well as support person(s) and/or doula, learners, interpreter, and social worker as applicable.
• Ensure that the patient knows the names and roles of the care team members and provide updates at shift change.
• If your birthing rooms have a whiteboard, use it to keep the patient and team informed of the plan.
• Delineate status updates by maternal condition, fetal condition, and labor progress.
• Provide explicit permission for patients to call for a team huddle at any time and encourage support from their support people and/or doula. ●

CASE The TeamBirth experience: Making a difference

“At a community hospital in Washington where we had implemented TeamBirth (a labor and delivery shared decision making model), a patient, her partner, a labor and delivery nurse, and myself (an ObGyn) were making a plan for the patient’s induction of labor admission. I asked the patient, a 29-year-old (G2P1001), how we could improve her care in relation to her first birth. Her answer was simple: I want to be treated with respect. Her partner went on to describe their past experience in which the provider was inappropriately texting while in between the patient’s knees during delivery. Our team had the opportunity to undo some of the trauma from her first birth. That’s what I like about TeamBirth. It gives every patient the opportunity, regardless of their background, to define safety and participate in their care experience.”

–Angela Chien, MD, Obstetrician and Quality Improvement leader, Washington

Unfortunately, disrespect and mistreatment are far from an anomaly in the obstetrics setting. In a systematic review of respectful maternity care, the World Health Organization delineated 7 dimensions of maternal mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, stigma and discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport between women and providers, and poor conditions and constraints presented by the health system.¹ In 2019, the Giving Voice to Mothers study showed that 17% of birthing people in the United States reported experiencing 1 or more types of maternal mistreatment.² Rates of mistreatment were disproportionately greater in populations of color, hospital-based births, and among those with social, economic, or health challenges.² It is well known that Black and African American and American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience the rare events of severe maternal morbidity and mortality more frequently than their White counterparts; the disproportionate burden of mistreatment is lesser known and far more common.

Overlooking the longitudinal harm of a negative birth experience has cascading impact. While an empowering perinatal experience can foster preventive screening and management of chronic disease, a poor experience conversely can seed mistrust at an individual, generational, and community level.

The patient quality enterprise is beginning to shift attention toward maternal experience with the development of PREMs (patient-reported experience measures), PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures), and novel validated scales that assess autonomy and trust.³ Development of a maternal Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey on childbirth is forthcoming.⁴ Of course, continuing to prioritize physical safety through initiatives on blood pressure monitoring and severe maternal morbidity and mortality remains paramount. Yet emotional and psychological safety also must be recognized as essential pillars of patient safety. Transgressions related to autonomy and dignity, as well as racism, sexism, classicism, and ableism, should be treated as “adverse and never events.”⁵

How the TeamBirth model works

Shared decision making (SDM) is cited in medical pedagogy as the solution to respectfullyrecognizing social context, integrating subjective experience, and honoring patient autonomy.⁶ The onus has always been on individual clinicians to exercise SDM. A new practice model, TeamBirth, embeds SDM into the culture and workflow. It offers a behavioral framework to mitigate implicit bias and operationalizes SDM tools, such that every patient is an empowered participant in their care.

TeamBirth was created through Ariadne Labs’ Delivery Decisions Initiative, a research and social impact program that designs, tests, and scales transformative, systems-level solutions that promote quality, equity, and dignity in childbirth. By the end of 2023, TeamBirth will be implemented in more than 100 hospitals across the United States, cumulatively touching over 200,000 lives. (For more information on the TeamBirth model, view the “Why TeamBirth” video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVrSaGk7gc.)

The tenets of TeamBirth are enacted through a patient-facing, shared whiteboard or dry-erase planning board in the labor room (FIGURE 1). Research has demonstrated how dry-erase boards in clinical settings can support safety and dignity in care, especially to improve patient-provider communication, teamwork, and patient satisfaction.^7,8 The planning board is initially filled out by a clinical team member and is updated during team “huddles” throughout labor.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTINS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Continue to: Patient response to TeamBirth is positive...

Patients and providers alike have endorsed TeamBirth. In initial pilot testing across 4 sites, 99% of all patients surveyed “definitely” or “somewhat” had the role they wanted in making decisions about their labor.⁹

In partnership with the Oklahoma Perinatal Quality Improvement Collaborative (OPQIC), the impact of TeamBirth was assessed in a statewide patient cohort (n = 3,121) using the validated Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale created by the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. The percentage of patients who scored in the highest MADM quartile was 31.3% higher for patients who indicated participation in a huddle during labor compared with those who did not participate in a huddle. This trend held across all racial and ethnic groups: For example, 93% of non-Hispanic Black/African American patients who had a TeamBirth huddle reported high autonomy, a nearly 20 percentage point increase from those without a huddle (FIGURE 2). Similarly, a higher percentage of agreement was observed across all 7 items in the MADM scale for patients who reported a TeamBirth huddle (FIGURE 3). TeamBirth’s effect has been observed across surveys and multiple validated metrics.

Continue to: Patient testimonials...

Patient testimonials

The following testimonials were obtained from a TeamBirth survey that patients in participating Massachusetts hospitals completed in the postpartum unit prior to discharge.

According to one patient, “TeamBirth is great, feels like all obstacles are covered by multiple people with many talents, expertise. Feels like mom is part of the process, much different than my delivery 2 years ago when I felt like things were decided for me/I was ‘told’ what we were doing and questioned if I felt uneasy about it…. We felt safe and like all things were covered no matter what may happen.”

Another patient, also at a Massachusetts hospital, offered these comments about TeamBirth: “The entire staff was very genuine and my experience the best it could be. They deserve updated whiteboards in every room. I found them to be very useful.”

The clinician perspective

To be certain, clinician workflow must be a consideration for any practice change. The feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the TeamBirth model to clinicians was validated through a study at 4 community hospitals across the United States in which TeamBirth had been implemented in the 8 months prior.⁹

The clinician response rate was an impressive 78%. Ninety percent of clinicians, including physicians, midwives, and nurses, indicated that they would “definitely” (68%) or “probably” (22%) recommend TeamBirth for use in other labor and delivery units. None of the clinicians surveyed (n = 375) reported that TeamBirth negatively impacted care delivery.⁹

Obstetricians also provided qualitative commentary, noting that, while at times huddling infringed on efficiency, it also enhanced staff fulfillment. An obstetrician at a Massachusetts hospital observed, “Overall I think [TeamBirth is] helpful in slowing us down a little bit to really make sure that we’re providing the human part of the care, like the communication, and not just the medical care. And I think most providers value the human part and the communication. You know, we all think most providers value good communication with the patients, but when you’re in the middle of running around doing a bunch of stuff, you don’t always remember to prioritize it. And I think that at the end of the day…when you know you’ve communicated well with your patients, you end up feeling better about what you’re doing.”

As with most cross-sectional survey studies, selection bias remains an important caveat; patients and providers may decide to complete or not complete voluntary surveys based on particularly positive or negative experiences.

Metrics aside, obstetricians have an ethical duty to provide dignified and safe care, both physically and psychologically. Collectively, as a specialty, we share the responsibility to mitigate maternal mistreatment. As individuals, we can prevent perpetuation of birth trauma and foster healing and empowerment, one patient at a time, by employing tenets of TeamBirth.

Steps for implementing the TeamBirth model

To incorporate TeamBirth into your practice:

• Make patients the “team captain” and center them as the primary decision maker.
• Elicit patient preferences and subjective experiences to develop a collaborative plan on admission and when changes occur in clinical status.
• Round with and utilize the expertise of the full care team—nurse and midwife or obstetrician, as well as support person(s) and/or doula, learners, interpreter, and social worker as applicable.
• Ensure that the patient knows the names and roles of the care team members and provide updates at shift change.
• If your birthing rooms have a whiteboard, use it to keep the patient and team informed of the plan.
• Delineate status updates by maternal condition, fetal condition, and labor progress.
• Provide explicit permission for patients to call for a team huddle at any time and encourage support from their support people and/or doula. ●

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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