Obstetrics

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

Among patients who undergo forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, obesity does not appear to be associated with increased risk for complications such as injuries to the anal sphincter or the need for their babies to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers have found.

But obesity does appear to increase the chances that when physicians attempt operative vaginal delivery with either forceps or a vacuum, patients will wind up undergoing cesarean delivery, another study found.

Taken together, the new data may help inform physicians’ decisions about when to consider operative vaginal delivery as an alternative to emergency cesarean births.

A prospective study showed that failed operative vaginal delivery – that is, a cesarean delivery after an attempted operative vaginal delivery – occurred for 10.1% of patients with obesity and 4.2% of those without obesity.

Researchers presented the findings at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“We want to really try to reduce the rate of C-sections and primary cesarean deliveries. One of the ways to do that is to attempt operative vaginal delivery,” said Marissa Platner, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

Data on how obesity influences risks with operative vaginal delivery have been limited and mixed, the researchers said.

To examine how often attempted operative vaginal delivery fails in patients with obesity, Jennifer Grasch, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, which included more than 10,000 participants.

“We know that cesarean sections among people with obesity are associated with increased complications, such as higher rates of infection and wound complications, than for people with lower BMI,” Dr. Grasch said. “Operative vaginal delivery can be an alternative to cesarean delivery in some situations, so we were interested in whether attempted operative vaginal delivery was also associated with higher rates of complications in individuals with obesity than those without obesity.”

The researchers focused on 791 patients with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. About 40% had a BMI of 30 or greater. Clinicians used a vacuum in approximately 60% of the attempts.

After an attempted vacuum-assisted delivery, neonatal morbidity was more common for infants whose mothers had obesity than for those whose mothers did not (32.7% vs. 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.61 [1.07-2.43]). Neonatal morbidity did not differ by obesity status following forceps-attempted delivery. Other adverse outcomes, including measures of maternal morbidity, did not significantly differ by obesity status, according to the researchers.
 

Choice may come down to experience

Several factors influence whether a clinician chooses forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or cesarean delivery, “but one of the most important is experience,” Dr. Grasch said. “Complication rates with both forms of operative vaginal delivery are low, yet there has been a trend toward lower rates of both in the last few decades.”

Elizabeth Cochrane, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and her colleagues investigated the relationship between obesity and adverse outcomes among patients with forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries.

The researchers analyzed data from 897 patients who underwent a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery between 2017 and 2021; 29% had a BMI of 30 or greater.

Injuries to the anal sphincter – which can lead to fecal incontinence – occurred in 18.7% of patients without obesity and in 17.7% of those with obesity. Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit occurred in 11.5% of patients without obesity and in 12.3% of patients with obesity. The differences were not statistically significant.

The bottom line: For forceps-assisted vaginal delivery, “obesity does not appear to be associated with increased rates” of adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns, the researchers concluded.
 

Reassuring data

The study by Dr. Cochrane’s group “provides helpful information for providers to be reassured when they are performing forceps deliveries” for patients with obesity, Dr. Platner said.

Rates of obesity have risen in the United States, and physicians often wonder whether a patient with obesity could be a candidate for forceps-assisted delivery, Dr. Cochrane said. In 2019, 29% of women had obesity before becoming pregnant.

“It all really comes down to how comfortable the provider is in that skill set and also the overall clinical scenario,” she said. “Sometimes an operative delivery with forceps or a vacuum can be the fastest way to deliver a baby when there is acute concern for maternal decompensation or fetal decompensation.”

The alternative is an emergency cesarean delivery. Given that those operations can be riskier and more difficult for patients with higher BMIs, a forceps-assisted delivery may be “an interesting alternative to emergency caesarean sections, as long as it is in an appropriate clinical setting with providers who feel very confident and comfortable using those devices,” Dr. Cochrane said.

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

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed federal protections for abortion that previously had been codified in Roe v Wade. Since this removal, most abortions have been banned in at least 13 states, and about half of states are expected to attempt to ban or heavily restrict abortion.^1,2 These laws banning abortion are having effects on patient care far beyond abortion, leading to uncertainty and fear among providers and denied or delayed care for patients.^3,4 It is critical that research documents the harmful effects of this policy change.

Patients that are pregnant with fetuses with severe malformations have had to travel long distances to other states to obtain care.⁵ Others have faced delays in obtaining treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and even for other conditions that use medications that could potentially cause an abortion.^6,7 These cases have the potential to result in serious harm or death of the patient with altered care. There is a published report from Texas showing how the change in practice due to the 6-week abortion ban imposed in 2021 was associated with a doubling of severe morbidity for patients presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes and other complications before 22 weeks’ gestation.⁸

While these cases have been highlighted in the media, there has not been a resource that comprehensively documents the changes in care that clinicians have been forced to make because of abortion bans as well as the consequences for their patients’ health. The media also may not be the most desirable platform for sharing cases of substandard care if providers feel their confidentiality may be breached as they are told by their employers to avoid speaking with reporters.⁹ Bearing this in mind, our team of researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin has launched a project aiming to collect stories of poor quality care post-Roe from health care professionals across the United States. The aim of the study is to document examples of the challenges in patient care that have arisen since the Dobbs decision.

The study website CarePostRoe.com was launched in October 2022 to collect narratives from health care providers who participated in the care of a patient whose management was different from the usual standard due to a need to comply with new restrictions on abortion since the Dobbs decision. These providers can include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, social workers, pharmacists, psychologists, or other allied health professionals. Clinicians can share information about a case through a brief survey linked on the website that will allow them to either submit a written narrative or a voice memo. The submissions are anonymous, and providers are not asked to submit any protected health information. If the submitter would like to share more information about the case via telephone interview, they will be taken to a separate survey which is not linked to the narrative submission to give contact information to participate in an interview.

Since October, more than 40 cases have been submitted that document patient cases from over half of the states with abortion bans. Clinicians describe pregnant patients with severe fetal malformations who have had to overcome financial and logistical barriers to travel to access abortion care. Several cases of patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies have been submitted, including cases that are being followed expectantly, which is inconsistent with the standard of care.¹⁰ We also have received several submissions about cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester where the patient was sent home and presented several days later with a severe infection requiring management in the intensive care unit. Cases of early pregnancy loss that could have been treated safely and routinely also were delayed, increasing the risk to patients who, in addition to receiving substandard medical care, had the trauma of fearing they could be prosecuted for receiving treatment.

We hope these data will be useful to document the impact of the Court’s decision and to improve patient care as health care institutions work to update their policies and protocols to reduce delays in care in the face of legal ambiguities. If you have been involved in such a case since June 2022, including caring for a patient who traveled from another state, please consider submitting it at CarePostRoe.com, and please spread the word through your networks. ●

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

A few years ago, my partner emailed me about a consult.
 

“Dr. Carter, I had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Smith today for a preconception consult for chronic hypertension. As a high-risk Black woman, she wants to know what we’re going to do to make sure that she doesn’t die in pregnancy or childbirth. I told her that you’re better equipped to answer this question.”

I was early in my career, and the only thing I could assume that equipped me to answer this question over my partners was my identity as a Black woman living in America.

Mrs. Smith was copied on the message and replied with a long list of follow-up questions and a request for an in-person meeting with me. I was conflicted. As a friend, daughter, and mother, I understood her fear and wanted to be there for her. As a newly appointed assistant professor on the tenure track with 20% clinical time, my clinical responsibilities easily exceeded 50% (in part, because I failed to set boundaries). I spent countless hours of uncompensated time serving on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and mentoring and volunteering for multiple community organizations; I was acutely aware that I would be measured against colleagues who rise through the ranks, unencumbered by these social, moral, and ethical responsibilities, collectively known as the “Black tax.”¹

I knew from prior experiences and the tone of Mrs. Smith’s email that it would be a tough, long meeting that would set a precedent of concierge level care that only promised to intensify once she became pregnant. I agonized over my reply. How could I balance providing compassionate care for this patient with my young research program, which I hoped to nurture so that it would one day grow to have population-level impact?

It took me 2 days to finally reply to the message with a kind, but firm, email stating that I would be happy to see her for a follow-up preconception visit. It was my attempt to balance accessibility with boundaries. She did not reply.

Did I fail her?

The fact that I still think of Mrs. Smith may indicate that I did the wrong thing. In fact, writing the first draft of this letter was a therapeutic experience, and I addressed it to Mrs. Smith. As I shared the experience and letter with friends in the field, however, everyone had similar stories. The letter continued to pass between colleagues, who each made it infinitely better. This collective process created the beautiful love letter to Black birthing people that we share here.

We call upon all of our obstetric clinician colleagues to educate themselves to be equally, ethically, and equitably equipped to care for and serve historically marginalized women and birthing people. We hope that this letter will aid in the journey, and we encourage you to share it with patients to open conversations that are too often left closed.

Continue to: Our love letter to Black women and birthing people...

Our love letter to Black women and birthing people

We see you, we hear you, we know you are scared, and we are you. In recent years, the press has amplified gross inequities in maternal care and outcomes that we, as Black birth workers, midwives, and physicians, already knew to be true. We grieve, along with you regarding the recently reported pregnancy-related deaths of Mrs. Kira Johnson,² Dr. Shalon Irving,³ Dr. Chaniece Wallace,⁴ and so many other names we do not know because their stories did not receive national attention, but we know that they represented the best of us, and they are gone too soon. As Black birth workers, midwives, physicians, and more, we have a front-row seat to the United States’ serious obstetric racism, manifested in biased clinical interactions, unjust hospital policies, and an inequitable health care system that leads to disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality for Black women.

Unfortunately, this is not anything new, and the legacy dates back to slavery and the disregard for Black people in this country. What has changed is our increased awareness of these health injustices. This collective consciousness of the risk that is carried with our pregnancies casts a shadow of fear over a period that should be full of the joy and promise of new life. We fear that our personhood will be disregarded, our pain will be ignored, and our voices silenced by a medical system that has sought to dominate our bodies and experiment on them without our permission.⁵ While this history is reprehensible, and our collective risk as Black people is disproportionately high, our purpose in writing this letter is to help Black birthing people recapture the joy and celebration that should be theirs in pregnancy and in the journey to parenthood.

As Black birth workers, we see Black pregnant patients desperately seeking safety, security, and breaking down barriers to find us for their pregnancy care. Often, they are terrified and looking for kinship and community in our offices. In rural areas patients may drive up to 4 hours in distance for an appointment, and during appointments entrust us with their stories of feeling unheard in the medical system. When we anecdotally asked about what they feared about pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period and thought was their risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth, answers ranged from 1% to 60%. Our actual risk of dying from a pregnancy-related cause, as a Black woman, is 0.0414% (41.4 Black maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).⁶ To put that in perspective, our risk of dying is higher walking down the street or driving a car.⁷

What is the source of the fear? Based on past and present injustices inflicted on people with historically marginalized identities, we have every right to be scared; but, make no mistake that fear comes at a cost, and Black birthing people are the ones paying the bill! Stress and chronic worry are associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, and so this completely justifiable fear, at the population level, is not serving us well personally.⁸ Unfortunately, lost in the messaging about racial inequities in maternal mortality is the reality that the vast majority of Black people and babies will survive, thrive, and have healthy pregnancy outcomes, despite the terrifying population-level statistics and horrific stories of discrimination and neglect that make us feel like our pregnancies and personal peril are synonymous.

While it is true that our absolute individual, personal risk is lower than population-level statistics convey, let us be clear: We are furious about what is happening to Black people! It is immoral that Black patients in the richest country in the world are 3-4 times more likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause than White women,⁹ and we are more likely to experience pregnancy complications and “near misses” when death is narrowly avoided. Research has done an excellent job defining reproductive health disparities in this country, but prioritizing and funding meaningful strategies, policies, and programs to close this gap have not taken precedence—especially initiatives and research that are headed by Black women.^10–12 This is largely because researchers and health care systems continue evaluating strategies that focus on behavior change and narratives that identify individual responsibility as a sole cause of inequity.

Let us be clear, Black people and our behaviors are not the problem.¹³ The problems are White supremacy, classism, sexism, heteropatriarchy, and obstetric racism.^1-21 These must be recognized and addressed across all levels of power. We endorse systems-level changes that are at the root of promoting health equity in our reproductive outcomes. These changes include paid parental leave, Medicaid expansion/extension, reimbursement for doula and lactation services, increased access to perinatal mental health and wellness services, and so much more. (See the Black Mamas Matter Alliance Toolkit: https://blackmamas matter.org/our-work/toolkits/.)

Continue to: Pearls for reassurance...

Pearls for reassurance

While the inequities and their solutions are grounded in the need for systemic change,²² we realize that these population-level solutions feel abstract when our sisters and siblings ask us, “So what can I do to advocate for myself and my baby, right now in this pregnancy?” To be clear, no amount of personal hypervigilance on our part as Black pregnancy-capable people is going to fix these problems, which are systemic; however, we want to provide a few pearls that may be helpful for patient self-advocacy and reassurance:

1. Seek culturally and ethnically congruent care. We intuitively want to find a clinician who looks like us, but sadly, in the United States only 5% of physicians and 2% of midwives are Black. Demand exceeds supply for Black patients who are seeking racially congruent care. Nonetheless, it is critical that you find a physician or midwife who centers you and  provides support and care that affirms the strengths and assets of you, your family, and your community when cultural and ethnic congruency are not possible for you and your pregnancy. 
2. Ask how your clinicians are actively working to ensure optimal and equitable experiences for Black birthing individuals. We recommend asking your clinician and/or hospital what, if anything, they are doing to address health care inequities, obstetric racism, or implicit bias in their pregnancy and postpartum care. Many groups (including some authors of this letter) are working on measures to address obstetric racism. An acknowledgement of initiatives to mitigate inequities is a meaningful first step. You can suggest that they look into it while you explore your options, as this work is rapidly emerging in many areas of the country. 
3. Plan for well-person care. The best time to optimize pregnancy and birth outcomes is before you get pregnant. Set up an appointment with a midwife, ObGyn, or your primary care physician before you get pregnant. Discuss your concerns about pregnancy and use this time to optimize your health. This also provides an opportunity to build a relationship with your physician/ midwife and their group to evaluate whether they curate an environment where you feel seen, heard, and valued when you go for annual exams or problem visits. If you do not get that sense after a couple of visits, find a place where you do. 
4. Advocate for a second opinion. If something does not sound right to you or you have questions that were not adequately answered, it is your prerogative to seek a second opinion; a clinician should never be offended by this. 
5. Consider these factors, for those who deliver in a hospital (by choice or necessity): 

   a. 24/7 access to obstetricians and dedicated anesthesiologists in the hospital

   b. trauma-informed medical/mental health/social services

   c. lactation consultation

   d. supportive trial of labor after cesarean delivery policy

   e. massive blood transfusion  protocol. 

6. Seek doula support! It always helps to have another set of eyes and ears to help advocate for you, especially when you are in pain during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the postpartum period, or are having difficulty advocating for yourself. There is also evidence that women supported by doulas have better pregnancy-related outcomes and experiences.²³ Many major cities in the United States have started to provide race-concordant doula care for Black birthing people  for free.²⁴
7.  Don’t forget about your mental health. As stated, chronic stress from racism impacts birth outcomes. Having a mental health clinician is a great way to mitigate adverse effects of prolonged tension.^25–27
8. Ask your clinician, hospital, or insurance company about participating in group prenatal care and/or nurse home visiting models²⁸ because both are associated with improved birth outcomes.²⁹ Many institutions are implementing group care that provides race-concordant care.^30,31 
9. Ask your clinician, hospital, or local health department for recommendations to a lactation consultant or educator who can support your efforts in breast/ chest/body-feeding. 

We invite you to consider this truth

You, alone, do not carry the entire population-level risk of Black birthing people on your shoulders. We all carry a piece of it. We, along with many allies, advocates, and activists, are outraged and angered by generations of racism and mistreatment of Black birthing people in our health systems and hospitals. We are channeling our frustration and disgust to demand substantive and sustainable change.

Our purpose here is to provide love and reassurance to our sisters and siblings who are going through their pregnancies with thoughts about our nation’s past and present failures to promote health equity for us and our babies. Our purpose is neither to minimize the public health crisis of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality nor is it to absolve clinicians, health systems, or governments from taking responsibility for these shameful outcomes or making meaningful changes to address them. In fact, we love taking care of our community by providing the best clinical care we can to our patients. We call upon all of our clinical colleagues to educate themselves to be ethically and equitably equipped to provide health care for Black pregnant patients. Finally, to birthing Black families, please remember this: If you choose to have a baby, the outcome and experience must align with what is right for you and your baby to survive and thrive. So much of the joys of pregnancy have been stolen, but we will recapture the celebration that should be ours in pregnancy and the journey to parenthood.

Sincerely,

Ebony B. Carter, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Karen A. Scott, MD, MPH
Birthing Cultural Rigor, LLC
Nashville, Tennessee

Andrea Jackson, MD, MAS
ObGyn
University of California,
San Francisco

Sara Whetstone, MD, MHS
ObGyn
University of California, 
San Francisco

Traci Johnson, MD
ObGyn
University of Missouri 
School of Medicine
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarahn Wheeler, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina

Asmara Gebre, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Joia Crear-Perry, MD
ObGyn
National Birth Equity Collaborative
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dineo Khabele, MD
Gynecologic Oncology
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Judette Louis, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Tampa, Florida

Yvonne Smith, MSN, RN
Director
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Laura Riley, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine
New York, New York

Antoinette Liddell, MSN, RN
Care Coordinator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York, New York

Rasheda Pippens, MSN, RN
Nurse Educator
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Ayaba Worjoloh-Clemens, MD
ObGyn
Atlanta, Georgia

Allison Bryant, MD, MPH
Maternal Fetal Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Sheri L. Foote, CNM
Midwife
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

J. Lindsay Sillas, MD
ObGyn
Bella OB/GYN
Houston, Texas

Cynthia Rogers, MD
Psychiatrist
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

Audra R. Meadows, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of California, San Diego

AeuMuro G. Lake, MD
Urogynecologist
Urogynecology and Healing Arts
Seattle, Washington

Nancy Moore, MSN, RN, WHNP-BC
Nurse Practitioner
Barnes-Jewish Hospital
St. Louis, Missouri

Zoë Julian, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Janice M. Tinsley, MN, RNC-OB
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, California

Jamila B. Perritt, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Washington, DC

Joy A. Cooper, MD, MSc
ObGyn
Culture Care
Oakland, California

Arthurine K. Zakama, MD
ObGyn
University of California,San Francisco

Alissa Erogbogbo, MD
OB Hospitalist
Los Altos, California

Sanithia L. Williams, MD
ObGyn
Huntsville, Alabama

Audra Williams, MD, MPH
ObGyn
University of Alabama, Birmingham

Hedwige “Didi” Saint Louis, MD, MPH
OB Hospitalist
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Cherise Cokley, MD
OB Hospitalist
Community Hospital
Munster, Indiana

J’Leise Sosa, MD, MPH
ObGyn
Buffalo, New York

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

Opioid overdose and other preventable causes are important contributors to postpartum death rates, Medicaid claims data show, particularly in women who have a recent history of opioid use disorder (OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
 

Nearly 5 million deliveries studied

Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.

They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.

Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).

Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
 

Medication significantly lowers death risk

The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.

For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).

As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.

“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
 

Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications

She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.

Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.

On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.

Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.

Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.

But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
 

Getting naloxone to patients, families

One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.

However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.

“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”

Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.

He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.

“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.

The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.

“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”

Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
 

Problem probably understated

He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.

“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.

Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.

In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.

“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”

Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of asthma medication by pregnant women was not associated with an increased risk of autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or Tourette syndrome for their children, a new study shows.

The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.

“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.

However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.

“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.

To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.

The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).

After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).

Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.

The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.

The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.

“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Midwives provide safe primary care for pregnant women who are at various levels of medical risk in British Columbia, Canada, new data suggest.

In most cases, for midwifery clients, birth outcomes were similar to or were better than birth outcomes of patients who had physician-led or obstetrician-led care.

In addition, midwifery clients were less likely to experience preterm births or have low-birth-weight babies and to experience cesarean deliveries or births involving instruments.

“Based on previous research, we know that midwives provide safe care for healthy childbearing people or those with no or few risk factors that might complicate the pregnancy or birth,” lead author Kathrin Stoll, PhD, a research associate in the University of British Columbia’s department of family practice, told this news organization.

“What we didn’t know until now is whether midwives provide safe care to people with moderate and high medical risks and what proportion of B.C. [British Columbia] midwifery clients are low, moderate, and high risk,” she said. “This is important to know because of the misperception that midwives only look after low-risk people. This misperception is sometimes used against midwives to justify giving them fewer resources and supports.”

The study was published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Increasing demand

Registered midwives have been part of the health care system in British Columbia since 1998, according to the study authors. The number of pregnant people who are attended by midwives during birth has steadily increased from 4.8% in 2004-2005 to 15.6% in 2019-2020.

The investigators analyzed 2008-2018 data from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry, which contains data for 99% of births, including home births. Their analysis included 425,056 births for which a family physician, an obstetrician, or a midwife was listed as the most responsible provider (MRP). The investigators assessed pregnancy risk status (low, moderate, or high), which was determined on the basis of an adapted perinatal risk scoring system used by the Alberta Perinatal Health Program. They estimated the differences in neonatal and maternal outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks.

Among the 425,056 births, 63,151 (14.9%) had a midwife as the MRP, 189,679 (44.6%) had a family physician, and 172,226 (40.5%) had an obstetrician. The antenatal risk score ranged from 0 to 23 (median score, 2).

The proportion of births with midwife-led care increased from 9.2% to 19.8% from 2008-2018. In 2018, midwives were listed as the MRP for 24.3% of low-risk, 14.3% of moderate-risk, and 7.9% of high-risk births in the province. This represented an absolute increase of 9.1% for low-risk, 7.7% for moderate-risk, and 5.7% for high-risk births during the study period.

Among the 12,169 at-home births that took place during the study period, 9,776 (80.3%) were low-risk, 2,329 (19.1%) were moderate-risk, and 64 (0.5%) were high-risk births. As the risk score increased, so did the proportion of midwifery and family physician clients who were delivered by obstetricians. Across all risk strata, more family physician clients than midwifery clients underwent deliveries by obstetricians.

Overall, the risk of perinatal death for midwifery clients was similar to the risk for those under the care of family physicians across all risk levels. Low- and moderate-risk clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience a perinatal death, compared with those with obstetrician-led care, although the adjusted absolute risk differences were small. In the high-risk group, there was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal deaths between midwife-led and physician-led care.

In addition, clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience preterm birth and have a low-birth-weight baby regardless of medical risk level. The adjusted relative risk of an Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes was significantly lower for midwife-led care than for physician-led care for nearly all comparisons.

The cesarean delivery rate among midwifery clients in the low-risk group was 7.2%, compared with 12.2% for family physicians and 42.3% for obstetrician clients. Cesarean delivery rates increased for midwifery clients as medical risk increased but were significantly lower than the physician rates across all medical risk levels.

Among low-risk clients, the absolute risk reduction for cesarean delivery was 34.4% with midwife-led care, compared with obstetrician-led care. The absolute risk difference increased to 55.3% for moderate-risk clients and to 42.2% for high-risk clients.
 

Labor induction varied

Although low-risk midwifery clients were significantly less likely to experience labor induction with oxytocin, high-risk midwifery clients were more than twice as likely to undergo induction with oxytocin than obstetrician clients (adjusted absolute difference, 11.3%).

For most risk levels, midwifery clients were less likely to have an assisted vaginal birth than physician clients, and they were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth. Low-risk clients who had a midwife as the MRP were nearly twice as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth than obstetricians’ clients, and moderate-risk clients were nearly four times as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth.

The rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) were significantly higher when a midwife was the MRP. In comparing midwifery clients with family physician clients, the relative and absolute differences were small, but they were larger when comparing midwifery clients with obstetrician clients. Among low-risk clients, the VBAC rate was 85.3% among midwifery clients, compared with 78.6% among family physician clients and 51.5% among obstetrician clients.

In general, the prevalence rates of adverse maternal outcomes (including blood transfusion, intensive care admissions, uterine rupture, and postpartum wound infection) were low for midwifery clients across all risk levels.

Breast- or chest-feeding at birth was significantly more common among midwifery clients across all risk levels as well.

Today, nearly 1 in 4 childbearing people in British Columbia receive care from a midwife at some point during pregnancy, birth, or the postpartum period, the study authors write. During the past 20 years, the profile of clients has evolved to include more moderate- and high-risk patients.

“Clients with more complex medical needs take more time and need more support,” said Dr. Stoll. “This means that midwives continue to stay on call, responding to pages and urgent medical concerns for their clients with no pay for being on call, no days off even for sick days, and unsafe working hours, often working more than 24 hours at a time. If we want to expand midwifery to communities where they are needed most, we need to provide an enabling environment.”

Additional studies are needed as to how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, health care costs, and client and provider experiences, the study authors write. At the same time, there are several barriers to obtaining funding, conducting studies, and publishing research by and about midwives in Canada, Dr. Stoll said – barriers that she and her co-authors faced.
 

Seeking broader access

Alixandra Bacon, a registered midwife and president of the Canadian Association of Midwives, said, “These findings demonstrate that pregnant people at any level of medical risk can benefit from midwifery care. This is a testament both to the benefits of the Canadian midwifery model of care and to the seamless integration of midwifery into collaborative teams and the health system.” Ms. Bacon wasn’t involved with this study.

“If we can realize our goal of equitable access to midwifery care for all families in Canada, we can help to decrease rates of unnecessary medical intervention, preterm labor, and stillbirth,” she added.

“Midwifery is well established across most of Canada. This is yet one more piece of evidence that shows the clinical benefits of midwifery care,” Jasmin Tecson, a registered midwife and president of the Association of Ontario Midwives, said in an interview.

Ms. Tecson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted the increasing number of clients with more complex health and social needs in Ontario. “It is time to think about how the skills and knowledge of midwives can be used with clients of different risk profiles and how the current scope of practice of midwives can be optimized and expanded,” she said. “For example, Ontario midwives are still required to prescribe medications from a limited list, despite the potential additional clinical risks and health system costs that this creates.”

The study received financial support from the University of British Columbia Stollery Fund and the University of British Columbia Work Learn Program. Dr. Stoll has an unpaid role with the Midwives Association Contract Negotiation Advisory Council. Ms. Bacon and Ms. Tecson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Midwives provide safe primary care for pregnant women who are at various levels of medical risk in British Columbia, Canada, new data suggest.

In most cases, for midwifery clients, birth outcomes were similar to or were better than birth outcomes of patients who had physician-led or obstetrician-led care.

In addition, midwifery clients were less likely to experience preterm births or have low-birth-weight babies and to experience cesarean deliveries or births involving instruments.

“Based on previous research, we know that midwives provide safe care for healthy childbearing people or those with no or few risk factors that might complicate the pregnancy or birth,” lead author Kathrin Stoll, PhD, a research associate in the University of British Columbia’s department of family practice, told this news organization.

“What we didn’t know until now is whether midwives provide safe care to people with moderate and high medical risks and what proportion of B.C. [British Columbia] midwifery clients are low, moderate, and high risk,” she said. “This is important to know because of the misperception that midwives only look after low-risk people. This misperception is sometimes used against midwives to justify giving them fewer resources and supports.”

The study was published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Increasing demand

Registered midwives have been part of the health care system in British Columbia since 1998, according to the study authors. The number of pregnant people who are attended by midwives during birth has steadily increased from 4.8% in 2004-2005 to 15.6% in 2019-2020.

The investigators analyzed 2008-2018 data from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry, which contains data for 99% of births, including home births. Their analysis included 425,056 births for which a family physician, an obstetrician, or a midwife was listed as the most responsible provider (MRP). The investigators assessed pregnancy risk status (low, moderate, or high), which was determined on the basis of an adapted perinatal risk scoring system used by the Alberta Perinatal Health Program. They estimated the differences in neonatal and maternal outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks.

Among the 425,056 births, 63,151 (14.9%) had a midwife as the MRP, 189,679 (44.6%) had a family physician, and 172,226 (40.5%) had an obstetrician. The antenatal risk score ranged from 0 to 23 (median score, 2).

The proportion of births with midwife-led care increased from 9.2% to 19.8% from 2008-2018. In 2018, midwives were listed as the MRP for 24.3% of low-risk, 14.3% of moderate-risk, and 7.9% of high-risk births in the province. This represented an absolute increase of 9.1% for low-risk, 7.7% for moderate-risk, and 5.7% for high-risk births during the study period.

Among the 12,169 at-home births that took place during the study period, 9,776 (80.3%) were low-risk, 2,329 (19.1%) were moderate-risk, and 64 (0.5%) were high-risk births. As the risk score increased, so did the proportion of midwifery and family physician clients who were delivered by obstetricians. Across all risk strata, more family physician clients than midwifery clients underwent deliveries by obstetricians.

Overall, the risk of perinatal death for midwifery clients was similar to the risk for those under the care of family physicians across all risk levels. Low- and moderate-risk clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience a perinatal death, compared with those with obstetrician-led care, although the adjusted absolute risk differences were small. In the high-risk group, there was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal deaths between midwife-led and physician-led care.

In addition, clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience preterm birth and have a low-birth-weight baby regardless of medical risk level. The adjusted relative risk of an Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes was significantly lower for midwife-led care than for physician-led care for nearly all comparisons.

The cesarean delivery rate among midwifery clients in the low-risk group was 7.2%, compared with 12.2% for family physicians and 42.3% for obstetrician clients. Cesarean delivery rates increased for midwifery clients as medical risk increased but were significantly lower than the physician rates across all medical risk levels.

Among low-risk clients, the absolute risk reduction for cesarean delivery was 34.4% with midwife-led care, compared with obstetrician-led care. The absolute risk difference increased to 55.3% for moderate-risk clients and to 42.2% for high-risk clients.
 

Labor induction varied

Although low-risk midwifery clients were significantly less likely to experience labor induction with oxytocin, high-risk midwifery clients were more than twice as likely to undergo induction with oxytocin than obstetrician clients (adjusted absolute difference, 11.3%).

For most risk levels, midwifery clients were less likely to have an assisted vaginal birth than physician clients, and they were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth. Low-risk clients who had a midwife as the MRP were nearly twice as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth than obstetricians’ clients, and moderate-risk clients were nearly four times as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth.

The rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) were significantly higher when a midwife was the MRP. In comparing midwifery clients with family physician clients, the relative and absolute differences were small, but they were larger when comparing midwifery clients with obstetrician clients. Among low-risk clients, the VBAC rate was 85.3% among midwifery clients, compared with 78.6% among family physician clients and 51.5% among obstetrician clients.

In general, the prevalence rates of adverse maternal outcomes (including blood transfusion, intensive care admissions, uterine rupture, and postpartum wound infection) were low for midwifery clients across all risk levels.

Breast- or chest-feeding at birth was significantly more common among midwifery clients across all risk levels as well.

Today, nearly 1 in 4 childbearing people in British Columbia receive care from a midwife at some point during pregnancy, birth, or the postpartum period, the study authors write. During the past 20 years, the profile of clients has evolved to include more moderate- and high-risk patients.

“Clients with more complex medical needs take more time and need more support,” said Dr. Stoll. “This means that midwives continue to stay on call, responding to pages and urgent medical concerns for their clients with no pay for being on call, no days off even for sick days, and unsafe working hours, often working more than 24 hours at a time. If we want to expand midwifery to communities where they are needed most, we need to provide an enabling environment.”

Additional studies are needed as to how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, health care costs, and client and provider experiences, the study authors write. At the same time, there are several barriers to obtaining funding, conducting studies, and publishing research by and about midwives in Canada, Dr. Stoll said – barriers that she and her co-authors faced.
 

Seeking broader access

Alixandra Bacon, a registered midwife and president of the Canadian Association of Midwives, said, “These findings demonstrate that pregnant people at any level of medical risk can benefit from midwifery care. This is a testament both to the benefits of the Canadian midwifery model of care and to the seamless integration of midwifery into collaborative teams and the health system.” Ms. Bacon wasn’t involved with this study.

“If we can realize our goal of equitable access to midwifery care for all families in Canada, we can help to decrease rates of unnecessary medical intervention, preterm labor, and stillbirth,” she added.

“Midwifery is well established across most of Canada. This is yet one more piece of evidence that shows the clinical benefits of midwifery care,” Jasmin Tecson, a registered midwife and president of the Association of Ontario Midwives, said in an interview.

Ms. Tecson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted the increasing number of clients with more complex health and social needs in Ontario. “It is time to think about how the skills and knowledge of midwives can be used with clients of different risk profiles and how the current scope of practice of midwives can be optimized and expanded,” she said. “For example, Ontario midwives are still required to prescribe medications from a limited list, despite the potential additional clinical risks and health system costs that this creates.”

The study received financial support from the University of British Columbia Stollery Fund and the University of British Columbia Work Learn Program. Dr. Stoll has an unpaid role with the Midwives Association Contract Negotiation Advisory Council. Ms. Bacon and Ms. Tecson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Midwives provide safe primary care for pregnant women who are at various levels of medical risk in British Columbia, Canada, new data suggest.

In most cases, for midwifery clients, birth outcomes were similar to or were better than birth outcomes of patients who had physician-led or obstetrician-led care.

In addition, midwifery clients were less likely to experience preterm births or have low-birth-weight babies and to experience cesarean deliveries or births involving instruments.

“Based on previous research, we know that midwives provide safe care for healthy childbearing people or those with no or few risk factors that might complicate the pregnancy or birth,” lead author Kathrin Stoll, PhD, a research associate in the University of British Columbia’s department of family practice, told this news organization.

“What we didn’t know until now is whether midwives provide safe care to people with moderate and high medical risks and what proportion of B.C. [British Columbia] midwifery clients are low, moderate, and high risk,” she said. “This is important to know because of the misperception that midwives only look after low-risk people. This misperception is sometimes used against midwives to justify giving them fewer resources and supports.”

The study was published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Increasing demand

Registered midwives have been part of the health care system in British Columbia since 1998, according to the study authors. The number of pregnant people who are attended by midwives during birth has steadily increased from 4.8% in 2004-2005 to 15.6% in 2019-2020.

The investigators analyzed 2008-2018 data from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry, which contains data for 99% of births, including home births. Their analysis included 425,056 births for which a family physician, an obstetrician, or a midwife was listed as the most responsible provider (MRP). The investigators assessed pregnancy risk status (low, moderate, or high), which was determined on the basis of an adapted perinatal risk scoring system used by the Alberta Perinatal Health Program. They estimated the differences in neonatal and maternal outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks.

Among the 425,056 births, 63,151 (14.9%) had a midwife as the MRP, 189,679 (44.6%) had a family physician, and 172,226 (40.5%) had an obstetrician. The antenatal risk score ranged from 0 to 23 (median score, 2).

The proportion of births with midwife-led care increased from 9.2% to 19.8% from 2008-2018. In 2018, midwives were listed as the MRP for 24.3% of low-risk, 14.3% of moderate-risk, and 7.9% of high-risk births in the province. This represented an absolute increase of 9.1% for low-risk, 7.7% for moderate-risk, and 5.7% for high-risk births during the study period.

Among the 12,169 at-home births that took place during the study period, 9,776 (80.3%) were low-risk, 2,329 (19.1%) were moderate-risk, and 64 (0.5%) were high-risk births. As the risk score increased, so did the proportion of midwifery and family physician clients who were delivered by obstetricians. Across all risk strata, more family physician clients than midwifery clients underwent deliveries by obstetricians.

Overall, the risk of perinatal death for midwifery clients was similar to the risk for those under the care of family physicians across all risk levels. Low- and moderate-risk clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience a perinatal death, compared with those with obstetrician-led care, although the adjusted absolute risk differences were small. In the high-risk group, there was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal deaths between midwife-led and physician-led care.

In addition, clients with midwife-led care were significantly less likely to experience preterm birth and have a low-birth-weight baby regardless of medical risk level. The adjusted relative risk of an Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 minutes was significantly lower for midwife-led care than for physician-led care for nearly all comparisons.

The cesarean delivery rate among midwifery clients in the low-risk group was 7.2%, compared with 12.2% for family physicians and 42.3% for obstetrician clients. Cesarean delivery rates increased for midwifery clients as medical risk increased but were significantly lower than the physician rates across all medical risk levels.

Among low-risk clients, the absolute risk reduction for cesarean delivery was 34.4% with midwife-led care, compared with obstetrician-led care. The absolute risk difference increased to 55.3% for moderate-risk clients and to 42.2% for high-risk clients.
 

Labor induction varied

Although low-risk midwifery clients were significantly less likely to experience labor induction with oxytocin, high-risk midwifery clients were more than twice as likely to undergo induction with oxytocin than obstetrician clients (adjusted absolute difference, 11.3%).

For most risk levels, midwifery clients were less likely to have an assisted vaginal birth than physician clients, and they were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth. Low-risk clients who had a midwife as the MRP were nearly twice as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth than obstetricians’ clients, and moderate-risk clients were nearly four times as likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth.

The rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) were significantly higher when a midwife was the MRP. In comparing midwifery clients with family physician clients, the relative and absolute differences were small, but they were larger when comparing midwifery clients with obstetrician clients. Among low-risk clients, the VBAC rate was 85.3% among midwifery clients, compared with 78.6% among family physician clients and 51.5% among obstetrician clients.

In general, the prevalence rates of adverse maternal outcomes (including blood transfusion, intensive care admissions, uterine rupture, and postpartum wound infection) were low for midwifery clients across all risk levels.

Breast- or chest-feeding at birth was significantly more common among midwifery clients across all risk levels as well.

Today, nearly 1 in 4 childbearing people in British Columbia receive care from a midwife at some point during pregnancy, birth, or the postpartum period, the study authors write. During the past 20 years, the profile of clients has evolved to include more moderate- and high-risk patients.

“Clients with more complex medical needs take more time and need more support,” said Dr. Stoll. “This means that midwives continue to stay on call, responding to pages and urgent medical concerns for their clients with no pay for being on call, no days off even for sick days, and unsafe working hours, often working more than 24 hours at a time. If we want to expand midwifery to communities where they are needed most, we need to provide an enabling environment.”

Additional studies are needed as to how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, health care costs, and client and provider experiences, the study authors write. At the same time, there are several barriers to obtaining funding, conducting studies, and publishing research by and about midwives in Canada, Dr. Stoll said – barriers that she and her co-authors faced.
 

Seeking broader access

Alixandra Bacon, a registered midwife and president of the Canadian Association of Midwives, said, “These findings demonstrate that pregnant people at any level of medical risk can benefit from midwifery care. This is a testament both to the benefits of the Canadian midwifery model of care and to the seamless integration of midwifery into collaborative teams and the health system.” Ms. Bacon wasn’t involved with this study.

“If we can realize our goal of equitable access to midwifery care for all families in Canada, we can help to decrease rates of unnecessary medical intervention, preterm labor, and stillbirth,” she added.

“Midwifery is well established across most of Canada. This is yet one more piece of evidence that shows the clinical benefits of midwifery care,” Jasmin Tecson, a registered midwife and president of the Association of Ontario Midwives, said in an interview.

Ms. Tecson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted the increasing number of clients with more complex health and social needs in Ontario. “It is time to think about how the skills and knowledge of midwives can be used with clients of different risk profiles and how the current scope of practice of midwives can be optimized and expanded,” she said. “For example, Ontario midwives are still required to prescribe medications from a limited list, despite the potential additional clinical risks and health system costs that this creates.”

The study received financial support from the University of British Columbia Stollery Fund and the University of British Columbia Work Learn Program. Dr. Stoll has an unpaid role with the Midwives Association Contract Negotiation Advisory Council. Ms. Bacon and Ms. Tecson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.