Obstetrics

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

For many, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v Jackson case that removed the constitutional right to an abortion has introduced outrage, fear, and confusion throughout the country. While the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly has established that abortion is essential health care and has published resources regarding the issue (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential), and many providers know what to do medically, they do not know what they can do legally. In a country where 45% of pregnancies are unplanned and 25% of women will access abortion services in their lifetime, this decision will completely change the landscape of providing and receiving abortion care. This decision will affect every provider and their patients and will affect them differently in each state. The country likely will be divided into 24 destination states that will protect the right to abortion and another 26 states that have or will soon ban abortion or severely restrict access to it.

Regardless of the state you practice in, it is clear that our voices, actions, and advocacy are essential during these challenging times. It can feel difficult to find ways to advocate, especially if you are in a state or have an employer that supports anti-abortion legislation or has been silent after the Dobbs decision was released. We have created a guide to help and encourage all ObGyn providers to find ways to advocate, no matter their zip code.

1. Donate

Many of our patients will need to travel out of state to seek abortion care. The cost of abortion care can be expensive, and travel, child care, and time off of work add to the costs of the procedure itself, making access to abortion care financially out of reach for some. There are many well-established abortion funds throughout the country; consider donating to one of them or organizing a fundraiser in your community. Go to abortionfunds.org/funds to find an abortion fund that will support patients in your community, or donate generally to support them all.

2. Save your stories

We already are hearing the devastating impact abortion bans have on patient care around the country. If you had to deny or delay care because of the new legal landscape surrounding abortion, write down or record the experience. Your stories can be critical in discussing the impact of legislation. If you choose to share on social media, ask the involved patients if they are comfortable with their story being shared online (as long as their identity is protected).

3. Talk about it

Talking about abortion is a critical step in destigmatizing it and supporting our patients as well as our field. These conversations can be challenging, but ACOG has provided an important guide that includes key phrases and statements to help shape the conversation and avoid polarizing language (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared). This guide also can be helpful to keep in mind when talking to members of the media.

Continue to: 4. Write about it...

4. Write about it

There are many opportunities to write about the impact of the Dobbs decision, especially locally. As a clinician and trusted member of the community, you can uniquely share your and your patients’ experiences. Your article does not have to appear in a major publication; you can still have an important impact in your local paper. See resources on how to write an op-ed and letter to the editor (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/connect-in-your-community/legislative-rx-op-eds-and-letters-to-the-editor).

5. Teach about it

These legislative changes uniquely impact our ObGyn residents; 44% of residents likely will be in a training program in a state that will ban or severely restrict abortion access. Abortion is health care, and a vast majority of our residents could graduate without important skills to save lives. As we strategize to ensure all ObGyn residents are able to receive this important training, work on incorporating an advocacy curriculum into your residents’ educational experience. Teaching about how to advocate is an important skill for supporting our patients and ensuring critical health policy. ACOG has published guides focused on education and training (www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/education-and-training). We also have included our own medical center’s advocacy curriculum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1STxLzE0j55mlDEbF0_wZbo9O QryAcs6RpfZ47Mwfs4I/edit).

6. Get involved and seek out allies

It’s important that ObGyns be at the table for all discussions surrounding abortion care and reproductive health. Join hospital committees and help influence policy within your own institution. Refer back to those abortion talking points—this will help in some of these challenging conversations.

7. Get on social media

Using social media can be a powerful tool for advocacy. You can help elevate issues and encourage others to get active as well. Using a common hashtag, such as #AbortionisHealthcare, on different platforms can help connect you to other advocates. Share simple and important graphics provided by ACOG on important topics in our field (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state/social-media) and review ACOG’s recommendation for professionalism in social media (https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/10/professional-use-of-digital-and-social-media).

8. Get active locally

We have seen the introduction of hundreds of bills in states around the country not only on abortion but also on other legislation that directly impacts the care we provide. It is critical that we get involved in advocating for important reproductive health legislation and against bills that cause harm and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Stay up to date on legislative issues with your local ACOG and medical chapters (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/advocate-in-your-state). Consider testifying at your State house, providing written or oral testimony. Connect with ACOG or your state medical chapter to help with talking points!

9. Read up

There have been many new policies at the federal level that could impact the care you provide. Take some time to read up on these new changes. Patients also may ask you about self-managed abortion. There are guides and resources (https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/practice-management) for patients that may seek medication online, and we want to ensure that patients have the resources to make informed decisions.

10. Hit the Capitol

Consider making time to come to the annual Congressional Leadership Conference in Washington, DC (https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/meetings/acog-congressional-leadership-conference), or other advocacy events offered through the American Medical Association or other subspecialty organizations. When we all come together as an organization, a field, and a community, it sends a powerful message that we are standing up together for our patients and our colleagues.

Make a difference

There is no advocacy too big or too small. It is critical that we continue to use our voices and our platforms to stand up for health care and access to critical services, including abortion care. ●

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A study of more than 4 million births over 20 years in five Scandinavian countries has reported that three antiseizure medications should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age because they were associated with low birth weights.

In results presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, Jakob Christensen, MD, DSc, PhD, a professor at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, said that the study found that carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with low birth weight and increased risk of infants being born small for gestational age.

• Carbamazepine, 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.71).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.03-1.69).
• Topiramate, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.15-2.24).
• Pregabalin, 1.23 (95% CI, 1.02-1.48).
• Clobazam, 4.36 (95% CI, 1.66-11.45).

The odds ratios for being born small for gestational age were:

• Carbamazepine, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.41).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.27-1.73).
• Topiramate, 1.52 (95% CI, 1.20-1.91).

“Prenatal exposure to carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with all estimates of adverse birth weight outcomes, thus confirming results from preclinical studies in animals and previous smaller studies in humans,” Dr. Christensen said.

He noted a lack of evidence for newer medications because their use was relatively low over the 20 years of the study. “However, for drugs like lamotrigine where we have a high number of exposed children, the finding of no association with low birth weight is reassuring, indicating the drug is safe,” Dr. Christensen said.
 

Use with caution

This study adds supportive evidence for expanding the list of antiseizure medications associated with small for gestational age infants, Elizabeth Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

“Previous clinical trials demonstrated that topiramate and zonisamide as well as phenobarbital were associated with small for gestational age,” she said. “This study added to the list carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. Previously it wasn’t clear from clinical data but there were some hints that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine might be associated with small for gestational age, but this is the first study to present robust data that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are associated with small for gestational age infants as well.”

She noted that these drugs can be used cautiously in women of child-bearing age and pregnant women. “I think these lines of evidence suggest that women with epilepsy should be more carefully monitored, at least with these high-quality, standard-of-care drugs, for fetal growth monitoring and perhaps most of them, especially those on at-risk drugs, should have detailed growth gradings,” Dr. Gerard said. Pregnant women on these antiseizure medications should have ultrasound beginning at 24 weeks gestation to monitor fetal growth, she said.

The NordForsk Nordic Program and Health and Welfare and the Independent Research Fund Denmark provided funding for the study. Dr. Christensen disclosed financial relationships with Union Chimique Belge Nordic and Eisai. Dr. Gerard disclosed relationships with Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Eisai.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A study of more than 4 million births over 20 years in five Scandinavian countries has reported that three antiseizure medications should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age because they were associated with low birth weights.

In results presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, Jakob Christensen, MD, DSc, PhD, a professor at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, said that the study found that carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with low birth weight and increased risk of infants being born small for gestational age.

• Carbamazepine, 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.71).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.03-1.69).
• Topiramate, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.15-2.24).
• Pregabalin, 1.23 (95% CI, 1.02-1.48).
• Clobazam, 4.36 (95% CI, 1.66-11.45).

The odds ratios for being born small for gestational age were:

• Carbamazepine, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.41).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.27-1.73).
• Topiramate, 1.52 (95% CI, 1.20-1.91).

“Prenatal exposure to carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with all estimates of adverse birth weight outcomes, thus confirming results from preclinical studies in animals and previous smaller studies in humans,” Dr. Christensen said.

He noted a lack of evidence for newer medications because their use was relatively low over the 20 years of the study. “However, for drugs like lamotrigine where we have a high number of exposed children, the finding of no association with low birth weight is reassuring, indicating the drug is safe,” Dr. Christensen said.
 

Use with caution

This study adds supportive evidence for expanding the list of antiseizure medications associated with small for gestational age infants, Elizabeth Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

“Previous clinical trials demonstrated that topiramate and zonisamide as well as phenobarbital were associated with small for gestational age,” she said. “This study added to the list carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. Previously it wasn’t clear from clinical data but there were some hints that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine might be associated with small for gestational age, but this is the first study to present robust data that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are associated with small for gestational age infants as well.”

She noted that these drugs can be used cautiously in women of child-bearing age and pregnant women. “I think these lines of evidence suggest that women with epilepsy should be more carefully monitored, at least with these high-quality, standard-of-care drugs, for fetal growth monitoring and perhaps most of them, especially those on at-risk drugs, should have detailed growth gradings,” Dr. Gerard said. Pregnant women on these antiseizure medications should have ultrasound beginning at 24 weeks gestation to monitor fetal growth, she said.

The NordForsk Nordic Program and Health and Welfare and the Independent Research Fund Denmark provided funding for the study. Dr. Christensen disclosed financial relationships with Union Chimique Belge Nordic and Eisai. Dr. Gerard disclosed relationships with Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Eisai.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A study of more than 4 million births over 20 years in five Scandinavian countries has reported that three antiseizure medications should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age because they were associated with low birth weights.

In results presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, Jakob Christensen, MD, DSc, PhD, a professor at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, said that the study found that carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with low birth weight and increased risk of infants being born small for gestational age.

• Carbamazepine, 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.71).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.03-1.69).
• Topiramate, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.15-2.24).
• Pregabalin, 1.23 (95% CI, 1.02-1.48).
• Clobazam, 4.36 (95% CI, 1.66-11.45).

The odds ratios for being born small for gestational age were:

• Carbamazepine, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.41).
• Oxcarbazepine, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.27-1.73).
• Topiramate, 1.52 (95% CI, 1.20-1.91).

“Prenatal exposure to carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate were associated with all estimates of adverse birth weight outcomes, thus confirming results from preclinical studies in animals and previous smaller studies in humans,” Dr. Christensen said.

He noted a lack of evidence for newer medications because their use was relatively low over the 20 years of the study. “However, for drugs like lamotrigine where we have a high number of exposed children, the finding of no association with low birth weight is reassuring, indicating the drug is safe,” Dr. Christensen said.
 

Use with caution

This study adds supportive evidence for expanding the list of antiseizure medications associated with small for gestational age infants, Elizabeth Gerard, MD, director of the Women with Epilepsy Program and associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

“Previous clinical trials demonstrated that topiramate and zonisamide as well as phenobarbital were associated with small for gestational age,” she said. “This study added to the list carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. Previously it wasn’t clear from clinical data but there were some hints that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine might be associated with small for gestational age, but this is the first study to present robust data that carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine are associated with small for gestational age infants as well.”

She noted that these drugs can be used cautiously in women of child-bearing age and pregnant women. “I think these lines of evidence suggest that women with epilepsy should be more carefully monitored, at least with these high-quality, standard-of-care drugs, for fetal growth monitoring and perhaps most of them, especially those on at-risk drugs, should have detailed growth gradings,” Dr. Gerard said. Pregnant women on these antiseizure medications should have ultrasound beginning at 24 weeks gestation to monitor fetal growth, she said.

The NordForsk Nordic Program and Health and Welfare and the Independent Research Fund Denmark provided funding for the study. Dr. Christensen disclosed financial relationships with Union Chimique Belge Nordic and Eisai. Dr. Gerard disclosed relationships with Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Eisai.

Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.” 

On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.

“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”

An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.

But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.

“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.

Personalized care works best

Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.

“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”

Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.

“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.

“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)

Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.

“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.

But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.

“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”

Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.

“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.

“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.

Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”

Tips on how to share bad news with patients

A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:

• Get the physical context right.
• Find out how much the patient knows.
• Find out how much the patient wants to know.
• Share the information.
• Respond to the patient’s feelings.
• Plan and follow through.

Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:

• Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
• Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
• Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.

Social media as support

Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.

“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.

Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.

Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.

“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”

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

Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.” 

On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.

“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”

An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.

But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.

“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.

Personalized care works best

Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.

“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”

Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.

“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.

“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)

Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.

“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.

But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.

“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”

Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.

“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.

“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.

Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”

Tips on how to share bad news with patients

A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:

• Get the physical context right.
• Find out how much the patient knows.
• Find out how much the patient wants to know.
• Share the information.
• Respond to the patient’s feelings.
• Plan and follow through.

Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:

• Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
• Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
• Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.

Social media as support

Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.

“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.

Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.

Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.

“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”

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

Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.” 

On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.

“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”

An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.

But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.

“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.

Personalized care works best

Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.

“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”

Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.

“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.

“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)

Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.

“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.

But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.

“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”

Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.

“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.

“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”

For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.

Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”

Tips on how to share bad news with patients

A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:

• Get the physical context right.
• Find out how much the patient knows.
• Find out how much the patient wants to know.
• Share the information.
• Respond to the patient’s feelings.
• Plan and follow through.

Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:

• Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
• Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
• Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.

Social media as support

Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.

“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.

Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.

Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.

“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”

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

The rate of postpartum hemorrhage for hospital deliveries in the United States increased significantly over a 20-year period, according to data from more than 76 million delivery hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains the leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, and many clinical and patient-level risk factors appear to be on the rise, wrote Chiara M. Corbetta-Rastelli, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Although practice changes have been introduced to reduce postpartum hemorrhage, recent trends in postpartum hemorrhage risk and outcomes in the context of such changes as hemorrhage safety bundles have not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from hospitalizations for females aged 15-54 years for deliveries between 2000 and 2019 using the National Inpatient Sample. They used a regression analysis to estimate average annual percentage changes (AAPC). Their objectives were to characterize trends and also to assess the association between risk factors and the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage and related interventions. Demographics, clinical factors, and hospital characteristics were mainly similar between the group of patients with postpartum hemorrhage and those with no postpartum hemorrhage.

Approximately 3% (2.3 million) of 76.7 million hospitalizations for delivery were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage during the study period, and the annual rate increased from 2.7% to 4.3%.

Overall, 21.4% of individuals with delivery hospitalizations complicated by postpartum hemorrhage had one postpartum risk factor, and 1.4% had two or more risk factors. The number of individuals with at least one risk factor for postpartum hemorrhage increased significantly, from 18.6% to 26.9%, during the study period, with an annual percentage change of 1.9%.

Compared with deliveries in individuals without risk factors, individuals with one risk factor had slightly higher odds of postpartum hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.14), but those with two or more risk factors were more than twice as likely to experience postpartum hemorrhage as those with no risk factors (OR, 2.31).

The researchers also examined the association of specific risk factors and interventions related to hemorrhage, notably blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy. Blood transfusions in individuals with postpartum hemorrhage increased from 5.4% to 16.7% between 2000 and 2011, (AAPC, 10.2%) then decreased from 16.7% to 12.6% from 2011 to 2019 (AAPC, –3.9%).

Peripartum hysterectomy in the study population increased from 1.4% to 2.4% from 2000 to 2009 (AAPC 5.0%), remained steady from 2009 to 2016, and then decreased from 2.1% to 0.9% from 2016 to 2019 (AAPC –27%).

Other risk factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage itself and with blood transfusion and hysterectomy in the setting of postpartum hemorrhage included prior cesarean delivery with placenta previa or accreta, placenta previa without prior cesarean delivery, and antepartum hemorrhage or placental abruption, the researchers noted.

“In addition to placental abnormalities, risk factors such as preeclampsia with severe features, polyhydramnios, and uterine leiomyomas demonstrated the highest rates of increase in our data,” they wrote in their discussion. These trends may lead to continuing increases in postpartum hemorrhage risk, which was not fully explained by the increase in risk factors seen in the current study, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes that could lead to misclassification of diagnoses, as well as possible differences in the definition and coding for postpartum hemorrhage among hospitals, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of cases of readmission for postpartum hemorrhage and lack of clinical details involving use of medications or nonoperative interventions, they said.

Notably, the study finding of stable to decreasing peripartum hysterectomy rates in hospitalized patients with postpartum hemorrhage conflicts with another recent study showing an increase in peripartum hysterectomy from 2009 to 2020, but this difference may reflect changes in billing, indications for hysterectomy, or study modeling, they said.

The current study was strengthened by the use of a large database to analyze population trends, a contemporary study period, and the inclusion of meaningful outcomes such as peripartum hysterectomy, the researchers wrote.

The shift in blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy may reflect the implementation of protocols to promote early intervention and identification of postpartum hemorrhage, they concluded.
 

Interventions can have an effect

“Hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States and blood transfusion is the most common severe maternal morbidity,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It is important to understand the current state, especially given that many hospitals have implemented policies and procedures to better identify and treat postpartum hemorrhage,” she said.

Dr. Albright said, “I was pleased to see that they did not just look at a diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage but rather also looked at complications arising from postpartum hemorrhage, such as blood transfusion or hysterectomy.”

Postpartum hemorrhage is often a clinical diagnosis that uses estimated blood loss, a notoriously inaccurate measure, said Dr. Albright. “Additionally, the definitions of postpartum hemorrhage, as well as the ICD codes, changed during the time period of the study,” she noted. “These factors all could lead to both underreporting and overreporting of the true incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. Blood transfusion and hysterectomy are more objective outcomes and demonstrate true morbidity,” she said.

“Most of the risk factors that are listed in the article are not modifiable during that pregnancy,” said Dr. Albright. For example, a history of a prior cesarean or having a twin pregnancy is not something that can be changed, she said. “Many of the other risk factors or associated clinical factors, such as obesity, chronic hypertension, and pregestational diabetes, are modifiable, but before pregnancy. Universal and easy access to primary medical care prior to and between pregnancies may help to mitigate some of these factors,” she noted.

Looking ahead, “It would be helpful to ensure that these types of data are available at the state and hospital level; this will allow for local evaluation of programs that are in place to reduce postpartum hemorrhage risk and improve identification and treatment,” Dr. Albright said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Corbetta-Rastelli and Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The rate of postpartum hemorrhage for hospital deliveries in the United States increased significantly over a 20-year period, according to data from more than 76 million delivery hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains the leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, and many clinical and patient-level risk factors appear to be on the rise, wrote Chiara M. Corbetta-Rastelli, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Although practice changes have been introduced to reduce postpartum hemorrhage, recent trends in postpartum hemorrhage risk and outcomes in the context of such changes as hemorrhage safety bundles have not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from hospitalizations for females aged 15-54 years for deliveries between 2000 and 2019 using the National Inpatient Sample. They used a regression analysis to estimate average annual percentage changes (AAPC). Their objectives were to characterize trends and also to assess the association between risk factors and the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage and related interventions. Demographics, clinical factors, and hospital characteristics were mainly similar between the group of patients with postpartum hemorrhage and those with no postpartum hemorrhage.

Approximately 3% (2.3 million) of 76.7 million hospitalizations for delivery were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage during the study period, and the annual rate increased from 2.7% to 4.3%.

Overall, 21.4% of individuals with delivery hospitalizations complicated by postpartum hemorrhage had one postpartum risk factor, and 1.4% had two or more risk factors. The number of individuals with at least one risk factor for postpartum hemorrhage increased significantly, from 18.6% to 26.9%, during the study period, with an annual percentage change of 1.9%.

Compared with deliveries in individuals without risk factors, individuals with one risk factor had slightly higher odds of postpartum hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.14), but those with two or more risk factors were more than twice as likely to experience postpartum hemorrhage as those with no risk factors (OR, 2.31).

The researchers also examined the association of specific risk factors and interventions related to hemorrhage, notably blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy. Blood transfusions in individuals with postpartum hemorrhage increased from 5.4% to 16.7% between 2000 and 2011, (AAPC, 10.2%) then decreased from 16.7% to 12.6% from 2011 to 2019 (AAPC, –3.9%).

Peripartum hysterectomy in the study population increased from 1.4% to 2.4% from 2000 to 2009 (AAPC 5.0%), remained steady from 2009 to 2016, and then decreased from 2.1% to 0.9% from 2016 to 2019 (AAPC –27%).

Other risk factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage itself and with blood transfusion and hysterectomy in the setting of postpartum hemorrhage included prior cesarean delivery with placenta previa or accreta, placenta previa without prior cesarean delivery, and antepartum hemorrhage or placental abruption, the researchers noted.

“In addition to placental abnormalities, risk factors such as preeclampsia with severe features, polyhydramnios, and uterine leiomyomas demonstrated the highest rates of increase in our data,” they wrote in their discussion. These trends may lead to continuing increases in postpartum hemorrhage risk, which was not fully explained by the increase in risk factors seen in the current study, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes that could lead to misclassification of diagnoses, as well as possible differences in the definition and coding for postpartum hemorrhage among hospitals, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of cases of readmission for postpartum hemorrhage and lack of clinical details involving use of medications or nonoperative interventions, they said.

Notably, the study finding of stable to decreasing peripartum hysterectomy rates in hospitalized patients with postpartum hemorrhage conflicts with another recent study showing an increase in peripartum hysterectomy from 2009 to 2020, but this difference may reflect changes in billing, indications for hysterectomy, or study modeling, they said.

The current study was strengthened by the use of a large database to analyze population trends, a contemporary study period, and the inclusion of meaningful outcomes such as peripartum hysterectomy, the researchers wrote.

The shift in blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy may reflect the implementation of protocols to promote early intervention and identification of postpartum hemorrhage, they concluded.
 

Interventions can have an effect

“Hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States and blood transfusion is the most common severe maternal morbidity,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It is important to understand the current state, especially given that many hospitals have implemented policies and procedures to better identify and treat postpartum hemorrhage,” she said.

Dr. Albright said, “I was pleased to see that they did not just look at a diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage but rather also looked at complications arising from postpartum hemorrhage, such as blood transfusion or hysterectomy.”

Postpartum hemorrhage is often a clinical diagnosis that uses estimated blood loss, a notoriously inaccurate measure, said Dr. Albright. “Additionally, the definitions of postpartum hemorrhage, as well as the ICD codes, changed during the time period of the study,” she noted. “These factors all could lead to both underreporting and overreporting of the true incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. Blood transfusion and hysterectomy are more objective outcomes and demonstrate true morbidity,” she said.

“Most of the risk factors that are listed in the article are not modifiable during that pregnancy,” said Dr. Albright. For example, a history of a prior cesarean or having a twin pregnancy is not something that can be changed, she said. “Many of the other risk factors or associated clinical factors, such as obesity, chronic hypertension, and pregestational diabetes, are modifiable, but before pregnancy. Universal and easy access to primary medical care prior to and between pregnancies may help to mitigate some of these factors,” she noted.

Looking ahead, “It would be helpful to ensure that these types of data are available at the state and hospital level; this will allow for local evaluation of programs that are in place to reduce postpartum hemorrhage risk and improve identification and treatment,” Dr. Albright said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Corbetta-Rastelli and Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The rate of postpartum hemorrhage for hospital deliveries in the United States increased significantly over a 20-year period, according to data from more than 76 million delivery hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains the leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, and many clinical and patient-level risk factors appear to be on the rise, wrote Chiara M. Corbetta-Rastelli, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Although practice changes have been introduced to reduce postpartum hemorrhage, recent trends in postpartum hemorrhage risk and outcomes in the context of such changes as hemorrhage safety bundles have not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from hospitalizations for females aged 15-54 years for deliveries between 2000 and 2019 using the National Inpatient Sample. They used a regression analysis to estimate average annual percentage changes (AAPC). Their objectives were to characterize trends and also to assess the association between risk factors and the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage and related interventions. Demographics, clinical factors, and hospital characteristics were mainly similar between the group of patients with postpartum hemorrhage and those with no postpartum hemorrhage.

Approximately 3% (2.3 million) of 76.7 million hospitalizations for delivery were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage during the study period, and the annual rate increased from 2.7% to 4.3%.

Overall, 21.4% of individuals with delivery hospitalizations complicated by postpartum hemorrhage had one postpartum risk factor, and 1.4% had two or more risk factors. The number of individuals with at least one risk factor for postpartum hemorrhage increased significantly, from 18.6% to 26.9%, during the study period, with an annual percentage change of 1.9%.

Compared with deliveries in individuals without risk factors, individuals with one risk factor had slightly higher odds of postpartum hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.14), but those with two or more risk factors were more than twice as likely to experience postpartum hemorrhage as those with no risk factors (OR, 2.31).

The researchers also examined the association of specific risk factors and interventions related to hemorrhage, notably blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy. Blood transfusions in individuals with postpartum hemorrhage increased from 5.4% to 16.7% between 2000 and 2011, (AAPC, 10.2%) then decreased from 16.7% to 12.6% from 2011 to 2019 (AAPC, –3.9%).

Peripartum hysterectomy in the study population increased from 1.4% to 2.4% from 2000 to 2009 (AAPC 5.0%), remained steady from 2009 to 2016, and then decreased from 2.1% to 0.9% from 2016 to 2019 (AAPC –27%).

Other risk factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage itself and with blood transfusion and hysterectomy in the setting of postpartum hemorrhage included prior cesarean delivery with placenta previa or accreta, placenta previa without prior cesarean delivery, and antepartum hemorrhage or placental abruption, the researchers noted.

“In addition to placental abnormalities, risk factors such as preeclampsia with severe features, polyhydramnios, and uterine leiomyomas demonstrated the highest rates of increase in our data,” they wrote in their discussion. These trends may lead to continuing increases in postpartum hemorrhage risk, which was not fully explained by the increase in risk factors seen in the current study, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes that could lead to misclassification of diagnoses, as well as possible differences in the definition and coding for postpartum hemorrhage among hospitals, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of cases of readmission for postpartum hemorrhage and lack of clinical details involving use of medications or nonoperative interventions, they said.

Notably, the study finding of stable to decreasing peripartum hysterectomy rates in hospitalized patients with postpartum hemorrhage conflicts with another recent study showing an increase in peripartum hysterectomy from 2009 to 2020, but this difference may reflect changes in billing, indications for hysterectomy, or study modeling, they said.

The current study was strengthened by the use of a large database to analyze population trends, a contemporary study period, and the inclusion of meaningful outcomes such as peripartum hysterectomy, the researchers wrote.

The shift in blood transfusion and peripartum hysterectomy may reflect the implementation of protocols to promote early intervention and identification of postpartum hemorrhage, they concluded.
 

Interventions can have an effect

“Hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States and blood transfusion is the most common severe maternal morbidity,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It is important to understand the current state, especially given that many hospitals have implemented policies and procedures to better identify and treat postpartum hemorrhage,” she said.

Dr. Albright said, “I was pleased to see that they did not just look at a diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage but rather also looked at complications arising from postpartum hemorrhage, such as blood transfusion or hysterectomy.”

Postpartum hemorrhage is often a clinical diagnosis that uses estimated blood loss, a notoriously inaccurate measure, said Dr. Albright. “Additionally, the definitions of postpartum hemorrhage, as well as the ICD codes, changed during the time period of the study,” she noted. “These factors all could lead to both underreporting and overreporting of the true incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. Blood transfusion and hysterectomy are more objective outcomes and demonstrate true morbidity,” she said.

“Most of the risk factors that are listed in the article are not modifiable during that pregnancy,” said Dr. Albright. For example, a history of a prior cesarean or having a twin pregnancy is not something that can be changed, she said. “Many of the other risk factors or associated clinical factors, such as obesity, chronic hypertension, and pregestational diabetes, are modifiable, but before pregnancy. Universal and easy access to primary medical care prior to and between pregnancies may help to mitigate some of these factors,” she noted.

Looking ahead, “It would be helpful to ensure that these types of data are available at the state and hospital level; this will allow for local evaluation of programs that are in place to reduce postpartum hemorrhage risk and improve identification and treatment,” Dr. Albright said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Corbetta-Rastelli and Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.