Obstetrics

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved 50 new drugs, but 24 will not be described here because they would probably not be used in pregnancy. The 24 are Aduhelm (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s disease; Azstarys (serdexmethylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate), a combination CNS stimulant indicated for the treatment of ADHD; Cabenuva (cabotegravir and rilpivirine) to treat HIV; Voxzogo (vosoritide) for children with achondroplasia and open epiphyses; Qelbree (viloxazine) used in children aged 6-17 years to treat ADHD; and Pylarify (piflufolastat) for prostate cancer. Other anticancer drugs that will not be covered are Cosela (trilaciclib), Cytalux (pafolacianine), Exkivity (mobocertinib); Fotivda (tivozanib), Jemperli (dostarlimab-gxly), Lumakras (sotorasib), Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw), Rylaze (asparaginase erwinia chrysanthemi), Scemblix (asciminib), Tepmetko (tepotinib), Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv), Truseltiq (infigratinib), Ukoniq (umbralisib), and Zynlonta (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl).

Skytrofa (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) will not be described below because it is indicated to treat short stature and is unlikely to be used in pregnancy. Nextstellis (drospirenone and estetrol) is used to prevent pregnancy.

Typically, for new drugs there will be no published reports describing their use in pregnant women. That information will come much later. In the sections below, the indications, effects on pregnant animals, and the potential for harm of a fetus/embryo are described. However, the relevance of animal data to human pregnancies is not great.

Adbry (tralokinumab) (molecular weight [MW], 147 kilodaltons), is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The drug did not harm fetal monkeys at doses that were 10 times the maximum recommended human dose.

Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft) (MW, 60 kDa) is an interferon alfa-2b indicated for the treatment of adults with polycythemia vera. It is given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Animal studies assessing reproductive toxicity have not been conducted. The manufacturer states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be assumed to have abortifacient potential.

Brexafemme (ibrexafungerp) (MW, 922) is indicated for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not in pregnant rats. The manufacturer recommends females with reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 4 days after the final dose.

Bylvay (odevixibat) (MW unknown) is indicated for the treatment of pruritus in patients aged 3 months and older. There are no human data regarding its use in pregnant women. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits. Although there are no data, the drug has low absorption following oral administration and breastfeeding is not expected to result in exposure of the infant.

Empaveli (pegcetacoplan) (MW, 44 kDa) is used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. When the drug was given to pregnant cynomolgus monkeys there was an increase in abortions and stillbirths.

Evkeeza (evinacumab-dgnb) (MW, 146k) is used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The drug was teratogenic in rabbits but not rats.

Fexinidazole (MW not specified) is indicated to treat human African trypanosomiasis caused by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. Additional information not available.

Kerendia (finerenone) (MW, 378), is indicated to reduce the risk of kidney and heart complications in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The drug was teratogenic in rats.

Korsuva (difelikefalin) (MW, 679) is a kappa opioid–receptor agonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis. No adverse effects were observed in pregnant rats and rabbits. The limited human data on use of Korsuva in pregnant women are not sufficient to evaluate a drug associated risk for major birth defects or miscarriage.

Leqvio (inclisiran) (MW, 17,285) is indicated to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as an add-on therapy. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits.

Livmarli (maralixibat) (MW, 710) is indicated for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus associated with Alagille syndrome. Because systemic absorption is low, the recommended clinical dose is not expected to result in measurable fetal exposure. No effects on fetal rats were observed.

Livtencity (maribavir) (MW, 376) is used to treat posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection that has not responded to other treatment. Embryo/fetal survival was reduced in rats but not in rabbits at doses less then the human dose.

Lupkynis (voclosporin) (MW, 1,215) is used to treat nephritis. Avoid use of Lupkynis in pregnant women because of the alcohol content of the drug formulation. The drug was embryocidal and feticidal in rats and rabbits but with no treatment-related fetal malformations or variations.

Lybalvi (olanzapine and samidorphan) (MW, 312 and 505) is a combination drug used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It was fetal toxic in pregnant rats and rabbits but with no evidence of malformations. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to atypical antipsychotics, including this drug, during pregnancy. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by contacting the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics at 1-866-961-2388 or visit the Reproductive Psychiatry Resource and Information Center of the MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health.

Nexviazyme (avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt) (MW, 124k) is a hydrolytic lysosomal glycogen-specific enzyme indicated for the treatment of patients aged 1 year and older with late-onset Pompe disease. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Nulibry (fosdenopterin) (MW, 480) is used to reduce the risk of mortality in molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. Studies have not been conducted in pregnant animals.

Ponvory (ponesimod) (MW, 461) is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. The drug caused severe adverse effects in pregnant rats and rabbits.

Qulipta (atogepant) (MW, 604) is indicated to prevent episodic migraines. It is embryo/fetal toxic in rats and rabbits.

Saphnelo (anifrolumab-fnia) (MW, 148k) is used to treat moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus along with standard therapy. In pregnant cynomolgus monkeys, there was no evidence of embryotoxicity or fetal malformations with exposures up to approximately 28 times the exposure at the maximum recommended human dose.

Tavneos (avacopan) (MW, 582) is indicated to treat severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. There appears to be an increased risk for hepatotoxicity. The drug caused no defects in hamsters and rabbits, but in rabbits there was an increase in abortions.

Tezspire (tezepelumab-ekko) (MW, 147k) is indicated to treat severe asthma as an add-on maintenance therapy. No adverse fetal effects were observed in pregnant cynomolgus monkeys.

Verquvo (vericiguat) (MW, 426) is used to mitigate the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for chronic heart failure. The drug was teratogenic in pregnant rabbits but not rats.

Vyvgart (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) (MW, 54k) is indicated to treat generalized myasthenia gravis. The drug did not cause birth defects in rats and rabbits.

Welireg (belzutifan) (MW, 383) is used to treat von Hippel–Lindau disease. In pregnant rats, the drug caused embryo-fetal lethality, reduced fetal body weight, and caused fetal skeletal malformations at maternal exposures of at least 0.2 times the human exposures.

Zegalogue (dasiglucagon) (MW, 3,382) is used to treat severe hypoglycemia. The drug did not cause birth defects in pregnant rats and rabbits.
 

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs will be in breast milk, but the safest course for an infant is to not breast feed if the mother is taking any of the above drugs.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.

In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.¹

Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.

Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.

We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.

Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.² While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
 

Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing

Our most recent review³ of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).

Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.

An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.

A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.⁴

Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.⁵ Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
 

MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins

Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.

MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.

In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).⁵ Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)

Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.

Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.

Counseling in twin pregnancies

We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.

Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.

Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.

Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.

When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
 

Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.

2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.

3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.  

4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.

5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.

Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.

In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.¹

Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.

Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.

We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.

Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.² While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
 

Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing

Our most recent review³ of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).

Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.

An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.

A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.⁴

Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.⁵ Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
 

MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins

Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.

MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.

In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).⁵ Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)

Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.

Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.

Counseling in twin pregnancies

We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.

Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.

Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.

Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.

When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
 

Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.

2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.

3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.  

4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.

5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.

Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) was developed in the 1980s in the wake of significant increases in the incidence of triplets and other higher-order multiples emanating from assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It was offered to reduce fetal number and improve outcomes for remaining fetuses by reducing rates of preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, and other adverse perinatal outcomes, as well as maternal complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.

In recent years, improvements in ART – mainly changes in ovulation induction practices and limitations in the number of embryos implanted to two at most – have reversed the increase in higher-order multiples. However, with intrauterine insemination, higher-order multiples still occur, and even without any reproductive assistance, the reality is that multiple pregnancies – particularly twins – continue to exist. In 2018, twins comprised about 3% of births in the United States.¹

Twin pregnancies have a significantly higher risk than singleton gestations of preterm birth, maternal complications, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The pregnancies are complicated more often by preterm premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies face additional, unique risks of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence, and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. These pregnancies account for about 20% of all twin gestations, and decades of experience with ART have shown us that monochorionic diamniotic gestations occur at a higher rate after in-vitro fertilization.

Although advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, risks remain and elective MPR is still very relevant for twin gestations. Patients routinely receive counseling about the risks of twin gestations, but they often are not made aware of the option of elective fetal reduction.

We have offered elective reduction (of nonanomalous fetuses) to a singleton for almost 30 years and have published several reports documenting that MPR in dichorionic diamniotic pregnancies reduces the risk of preterm delivery and other complications without increasing the risk of pregnancy loss.

Most recently, we also published data comparing the outcomes of patients with monochorionic diamniotic gestations who underwent elective MPR by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. those with ongoing monochorionic diamniotic gestations.² While the numbers were small, the data show significantly lower rates of preterm birth without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
 

Experience with dichorionic diamniotic twins, genetic testing

Our most recent review³ of outcomes in dichorionic diamniotic gestations covered 855 patients, 29% of whom underwent planned elective MPR at less than 15 weeks, and 71% of whom had ongoing twin gestations. Those with ongoing twin gestations had adjusted odds ratios of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks of 5.62 and 2.22, respectively (adjustments controlled for maternal characteristics such as maternal age, BMI, use of chorionic villus sampling [CVS], and history of preterm birth).

Ongoing twin pregnancies were also more likely to have preeclampsia (AOR, 3.33), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3.86), and low birthweight (under the 5th and 10th percentiles). There were no significant differences in the rate of unintended pregnancy loss (2.4% vs. 2.3%), and rates for total pregnancy loss at less than 24 weeks and less than 20 weeks were similar.

An important issue in the consideration of MPR is that prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities is very safe in twins. Multiple gestations are at greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities, so performing MPR selectively – if a chromosomally abnormal fetus is present – is desirable for many parents.

A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of studies reporting fetal loss following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancies found an exceedingly low risk of loss. Procedure-related fetal loss (the primary outcome) was lower than previously reported, and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks gestation or within 4 weeks after the procedure (secondary outcomes), did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancies not undergoing invasive prenatal testing.⁴

Our data have shown no significant differences in pregnancy loss between patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR and those who did not. Looking specifically at reduction to a singleton gestation, patients who underwent CVS prior to MPR had a fourfold reduction in loss.⁵ Therefore, we counsel patients that CVS provides useful information – especially now with the common use of chromosomal microarray – at almost negligible risk.
 

MPR for monochorionic diamniotic twins

Most of the literature on MPR from twin to singleton gestations reports on intrathoracic potassium chloride injection used in dichorionic diamniotic twins.

MPR in monochorionic diamniotic twins is reserved in the United States for monochorionic pregnancies in which there are severe fetal anomalies, severe growth restriction, or other significant complications. It is performed in such cases around 20 weeks gestation. However, given the significant risks of monochorionic twin pregnancies, we also have been offering MPR electively and earlier in pregnancy. While many modalities of intrafetal cord occlusion exist, RFA at the cord insertion site into the fetal abdomen is our preferred technique.

In our retrospective review of 315 monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations, the 14 patients who had RFA electively had no pregnancy losses and a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at less than 37-weeks gestation, compared with 301 ongoing monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies (29% vs. 76%).⁵ Reduction with RFA, performed at a mean gestational age of 15 weeks, also eliminated the risks unique to monochorionic twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and twin-anemia polycythemia sequence. (Of the ongoing twin gestations, 12% required medically indicated RFA, fetoscopic laser ablation, and/or amnioreduction; 4% had unintended loss of one fetus; and 4% had unintended loss of both fetuses before 24 weeks’ gestation. Fewer than 70% of the ongoing twin gestations had none of the significant adverse outcomes unique to monochorionic twins.)

Interestingly, there were still a couple of cases of fetal growth restriction in patients who underwent elective MPR – a rate higher than that seen in singleton gestations – most likely because of the early timing of the procedure.

Our numbers of MPRs in this review were small, but the data offer at least preliminary evidence that planned elective RFA before 17 weeks gestation may be offered to patients who do not want to assume the risks of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies.

Counseling in twin pregnancies

We perform thorough, early assessments of fetal anatomy in our twin pregnancies, and we undertake thorough medical and obstetrical histories to uncover birth complications or medical conditions that would increase risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and other complications.

Because monochorionic gestations are at particularly high risk for heart defects, we also routinely perform fetal echocardiography in these pregnancies.

Genetic testing is offered to all twin pregnancies, and as mentioned above, we especially counsel those considering MPR that such testing provides useful information.

Patients are made aware of the option of MPR and receive nondirective counseling. It is the patient’s choice. We recognize that elective termination is a controversial procedure, but we believe that the option of MPR should be available to patients who want to improve outcomes for their pregnancy.

When anomalies are discovered and selective termination is chosen, we usually try to perform MPR as early as possible. After 16 weeks, we’ve found, the rate of pregnancy loss increases slightly.
 

Dr. Stone is the Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. DeBolt is a clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Martin JA and Osterman MJK. National Center of Health Statistics. NCHS Data Brief, 2019;no 351.

2. Manasa GR et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3:100447.

3. Vieira LA et al. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:253.e1-8.  

4. Di Mascio et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 Nov;56(5):647-55.

5. Ferrara L et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):408.e1-4.

For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.

The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),¹ the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.

Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations² – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.³

While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.

To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255

2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.

3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.

For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.

The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),¹ the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.

Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations² – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.³

While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.

To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255

2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.

3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.

For over 2 years, the world has reeled from the COVID-19 pandemic. Life has changed dramatically, priorities have been re-examined, and the collective approach to health care has shifted tremendously. While concerns regarding coronavirus and its variants are warranted, another “pandemic” is ravaging the world and has yet to be fully addressed: pregnancy-related maternal mortality.

The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States is unconscionable. Compared with other developed nations – such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada – we lag far behind. Data published in 2020 showed that the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States was 17.4, more than double that of France (8.7 deaths per 100,000 live births),¹ the country with the next-highest rate. Americans like being first – first to invent the light bulb, first to perform a successful solid organ xenotransplantation, first to go to the moon – but holding “first place” in maternal mortality is not something we should wish to maintain.

Ob.gyns. have long raised the alarm regarding the exceedingly high rates of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. While there have been many advances in antenatal care to reduce these severe adverse events – improvements in surveillance and data reporting, maternal-focused telemedicine services, multidisciplinary care team models, and numerous research initiatives by federal and nonprofit organizations² – the recent wave of legislation restricting reproductive choice may also have the unintended consequence of further increasing the rate of pregnancy-related maternal morbidity and mortality.³

While we have an obligation to provide our maternal and fetal patients with the best possible care, under some circumstances, that care may require prioritizing the mother’s health above all else.

To discuss the judicious use of multifetal pregnancy reduction, we have invited Dr. Joanne Stone, The Ellen and Howard C. Katz Chairman’s Chair, and Dr. Chelsea DeBolt, clinical fellow in maternal-fetal medicine, both in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Tikkanen R et al. The Commonwealth Fund. Nov 2020. doi: 10.26099/411v-9255

2. Ahn R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11 Suppl):S3-10. doi: 10.7326/M19-3258.

3. Pabayo R et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113773.

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●
 

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●
 

Muraca GM, Boutin A, Razaz N, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma following operative vaginal delivery. CMAJ. 2022;194:E1-E12. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.210841.
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY 

Operative vaginal delivery is used to achieve and expedite safe vaginal birth while avoiding CD and its associated morbidities.^1,2 Despite support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for the use of OVD as an alternative to CD, OVD was used in only 3% of all US births in 2013, a shift from approximately 30% in 1987.^1,3 Reported complications of OVD are biased by the level of experience of the operator, changes in practice, and by misinterpretation of the counterfactual.¹

Outcomes of OVD should be compared with appropriate reference groups, namely, with second-stage CD births rather than with spontaneous vaginal births.⁴ With decreasing rates of OVD, evidence of contemporary data is needed on appropriately compared perinatal outcomes.⁴
 

Details of the study 

Muraca and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study of births in Canada between 2013 and 2019 to assess the incidence of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD. They used composites defined a priori— stratified by instrument, region, level of obstetric care, and institutional OVD volume. 

Results. Among 1,326,191 live or stillbirths, 2.9% were attempted forceps deliveries and 8.4% were attempted vacuum deliveries. Following forceps delivery, the maternal trauma rate was 25.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8%–25.7%), and the neonatal trauma rate was 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 8.6–10.6). Following vacuum delivery, maternal and neonatal trauma rates were 13.2% (95% CI, 13.0%–13.4%) and 9.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 9.0–10.2), respectively. Maternal trauma was driven by higher order perineal lacerations. Some association was seen between increased forceps volume and decreased maternal trauma rates. 

The authors concluded that in Canada, rates of maternal and neonatal trauma following OVD are higher than previously reported in consensus statements.

Study strengths and limitations

This large contemporary study uniquely stratified perinatal outcomes following OVD. The outcomes are well defined and meaningful, but some limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. 

First, stillbirths were included for the maternal composite outcome, yet the incidence of this within the study population is not reported. Operative vaginal deliveries that involve stillbirths can be complex; a subgroup analysis excluding these would aid in interpretation.

Second, complicated OVDs, including sequential use of forceps and vacuum and OVDs from midpelvic station, were included; ACOG recommends against both these practices in routine circumstances due to known increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity.¹ As such, the inclusion of these OVDs may bias results away from the null. 

Finally, despite discussing the role of episiotomy, the episiotomy rate in this cohort is not reported.

Despite these limitations, the study by Muraca and colleagues is a positive step forward toward understanding the role of OVD in contemporary obstetric practice, and it uniquely ascertains the impact of OVD volume outcomes that previously had been an elusive exposure ●
 

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

All along, Julia Maeda knew she wanted to have her baby naturally. For her, that meant in a hospital, vaginally, without an epidural for pain relief.

This was her first pregnancy. And although she is a nurse, she was working with cancer patients at the time, not with laboring mothers or babies. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” said Ms. Maeda, now 32. “I didn’t do much preparation.”

Her home state of Mississippi has the highest cesarean section rate in the United States – nearly 4 in 10 women who give birth there deliver their babies via C-section. Almost 2 weeks past her due date in 2019, Ms. Maeda became one of them after her doctor came to her bedside while she was in labor.

“‘You’re not in distress, and your baby is not in distress – but we don’t want you to get that way, so we need to think about a C-section,’” she recalled her doctor saying. “I was totally defeated. I just gave in.”

C-sections are sometimes necessary and even lifesaving, but public health experts have long contended that too many performed in the U.S. aren’t. They argue it is major surgery accompanied by significant risk and a high price tag.

Overall, 31.8% of all births in the U.S. were C-sections in 2020, just a slight tick up from 31.7% the year before, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s close to the peak in 2009, when it was 32.9%. And the rates are far higher in many states, especially across the South.

These high C-section rates have persisted – and in some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, even grown slightly – despite continual calls to reduce them. And although the pandemic presented new challenges for pregnant women, research suggests that the U.S. C-section rate was unaffected by COVID. Instead, obstetricians and other health experts say the high rate is an intractable problem.

Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have reduced their rates through a variety of strategies, including sharing C-section data with doctors and hospitals. But change has proved difficult elsewhere, especially in the South and in Texas, where women are generally less healthy heading into their pregnancies and maternal and infant health problems are among the highest in the United States.

“We have to restructure how we think about C-sections,” said Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, an ob.gyn. who is medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative, Kenner, La., a group of 43 birthing hospitals focused on lowering Louisiana’s C-section rate. “It’s a lifesaving technique, but it’s also not without risks.”

She said C-sections, like any operation, create scar tissue, including in the uterus, which may complicate future pregnancies or abdominal surgeries. C-sections also typically lead to an extended hospital stay and recovery period and increase the chance of infection. Babies face risks, too. In rare cases, they can be nicked or cut during an incision. 

Although C-sections are sometimes necessary, public health leaders say these surgeries have been overused in many places. Black women, particularly, are more likely to give birth by C-section than any other racial group in the country. Often, hospitals and even regions have wide, unexplained variations in rates.

“If you were delivering in Miami-Dade County, you had a 75% greater chance of having a cesarean than in northern Florida,” said William Sappenfield, MD, an ob.gyn. and epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who has studied the state’s high C-section rate.

Some physicians say their rates are driven by mothers who request the procedure, not by doctors. But Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. at Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, and former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, said she saw C-section rates go dramatically up at 4 and 5 p.m. – around the time when doctors tend to want to go home.

She led several initiatives to improve birth outcomes in Louisiana, including leveling Medicaid payment rates to hospitals for vaginal deliveries and C-sections. In most places, C-sections are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries, making high C-section rates not only a concern for expectant mothers but also for taxpayers.

Medicaid pays for 60% of all births in Louisiana, according to KFF, and about half of all births in most Southern states, compared with 42% nationally. That’s one reason some states – including Louisiana, Tennessee, and Minnesota – have tried to tackle high C-section rates by changing how much Medicaid pays for them. But payment reform alone isn’t enough, Dr. Gee said.

“There was a guy in central Louisiana who was doing more C-sections and early elective deliveries than anyone in the U.S.,” she said. “When you have a culture like that, it’s hard to shift from it.”

Linda Schwimmer, president and CEO of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, said many hospitals and doctors don’t even know their C-section rates. Sharing this data with doctors and hospitals – and making it public – made some providers uncomfortable, she said, but it ultimately worked. New Jersey’s C-section rate among first-time, low-risk mothers dropped from 33.1% in 2013 to 26.7% 6 years later once the state began sharing these data, among other initiatives.

The New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute and other groups like it around the country focus on reducing a subset of C-sections called “nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex” C-sections, or surgeries on first-time, full-term moms giving birth to a single infant who is positioned head-down in the uterus.

NTSV C-sections are important to track because women who have a C-section during their first pregnancy face a 90% chance of having another in subsequent pregnancies. Across the U.S., the rate for these C-sections was 25.9% in 2020 and 25.6% in 2019.

Elliott Main, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University and the medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, coauthored a paper, published in JAMA last year, that outlines interventions the collaborative took that lowered California’s NTSV C-Section rate from 26.0% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2019. Nationally, the rate was unchanged during that period.  

Allowing women to labor for longer stretches of time before resorting to surgery is important, he said.

The cervix must be 10 cm dilated before a woman gives birth. The threshold for “active labor” used to be when the cervix was dilated at least 4 cm. In more recent years, though, the onset of active labor has been changed to 5-6 cm.

“People show up at the hospital too early,” said Toni Hill, president of the Mississippi Midwives Alliance. “If you show up to the hospital at 2-3 centimeters, you can be at 2-3 centimeters for weeks. I don’t even consider that labor.”

Too often, she said, women at an early stage of labor end up being induced and deliver via C-section.

“It’s almost like, at this point, C-sections are being handed out like lollipops,” said LA’Patricia Washington, a doula based in Jackson, Miss. Doulas are trained, nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after delivery.

Ms. Washington works with a nonprofit group, the Jackson Safer Childbirth Experience, that pays for doulas to help expectant mothers in the region. Some state Medicaid programs, such as New Jersey’s, reimburse for services by doulas because research shows they can reduce C-section rates. California has been trying to roll out the same benefit for its Medicaid members.

In 2020, when Julia Maeda became pregnant again, she paid out-of-pocket for a doula to attend the birth. The experience of having her son via C-section the previous year had been “emotionally and psychologically traumatic,” Ms. Maeda said.

She told her ob.gyn. that she wanted a VBAC, short for “vaginal birth after cesarean.” But, she said, “he just shook his head and said, ‘That’s not a good idea.’”

She had VBAC anyway. Ms. Maeda credits her doula with making it happen. 

“Maybe just her presence relayed to the nursing staff that this was something I was serious about,” Ms. Maeda said. “They want you to have your baby during business hours. And biology doesn’t work that way.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.