Obstetrics

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

A first-ever study of the effect of evidence-based maternity care practices on prenatal breastfeeding intentions in women from low-income U.S. households shows that the use of “baby-friendly steps” during birth hospitalization made it possible for almost half to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month.

Analyses of national data from a longitudinal study of 1,080 women enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) revealed that 47% were able to meet their prenatal intention to breastfeed without formula or other milk for at least 30 days.

The odds of meeting prenatal breastfeeding intentions more than quadrupled when babies received only breast milk (risk ratio, 4.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-5.7), the study showed. Breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth was also associated with greater likelihood of breastfeeding success (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6).

The study, led by Heather C. Hamner, PhD, MS, MPH, of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, , Atlanta, was reported online in Pediatrics.

“This study confirms the relationship between experiencing maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding and meeting one’s breastfeeding intentions, and adds evidence specifically among low-income women, who are known to be at higher risk of not breastfeeding,” the study authors wrote.

Women from low-income households often face additional barriers to meeting their breastfeeding goals, including lack of access to professional lactation services, Dr. Hamner said in an interview. “We want physicians to know how important maternity care practices supportive of breastfeeding are to helping all women achieve their breastfeeding goals. Physicians can be champions for implementation of evidence-based maternity care practices in the hospitals and practices in which they work.”

Dr. Hamner emphasized that physicians need to discuss the importance of breastfeeding with patients and their families, brief them on what to expect in the maternity care setting, and ensure women are connected to lactation resources. The American Academy of Pediatrics is working to increase physician capacity to support breastfeeding through the Physician Engagement and Training Focused on Breastfeeding project.

For the study, Dr. Hamner and colleagues analyzed data from the longitudinal WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2), which assessed the impact of 6 steps from a 10-step maternity care protocol known as The Ten Steps To Successful Breastfeeding. These steps are part of the worldwide Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), which has been shown to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and other factors, the study authors estimated risk ratios for associations between each of six maternity care practices assessed in ITFPS-2 and the success of women who reported an intention to breastfeed exclusively for 1 month. The six steps included initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth (step 4), showing moms how to breastfeed and maintain lactation (step 5), giving no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated (step 6), rooming-in (step 7), breastfeeding on demand (step 8), and giving no pacifiers (step 9).

The analyses showed that only steps 4 and 6 – initiating breastfeeding at birth and giving only breast milk – remained significantly associated with meeting breastfeeding intentions. The results also revealed a dose-response relationship between the number of baby steps experienced during birth hospitalization and the likelihood of meeting breastfeeding goals, a finding in keeping with previous studies. In women who experienced all six steps, for example, 76% were breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month, compared with 16% of those who experienced zero to two steps.

Although the dose-response relationship did not appear to differ significantly by race or ethnicity, it was driven primarily by a hospital policy of providing infant formula or other supplementation, the study authors found. Notably, 44% of women reported that their infant had been fed something other than breast milk while in the hospital, and about 60% said they stopped breastfeeding earlier than intended.

“This finding reiterates the importance of limiting in-hospital formula or other supplementation of breastfed infants to only those with medical necessity,” Dr. Hamner and colleagues said.

Despite improvements in maternity care practices that promote breastfeeding, including an increase in the number of births occurring in U.S. hospitals with a baby-friendly designation, many women continue to experience significant barriers to breastfeeding, the investigators pointed out. Currently, there are 592 baby-friendly hospitals in the United States, representing 28.29% of annual births.

“I think more hospitals becoming baby friendly would really help,” Mary Franklin, DNP, CNM, assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. More needs to be done to support women during birth hospitalization and after they return home, so they can continue to breastfeed for “longer than the initial 6 weeks,” added Dr. Franklin, who is also director of the nurse midwifery and women’s health NP program.

The AAP recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by complementary food introduction and continued breastfeeding through 12 months or beyond.

Like Dr. Hamner, Dr. Franklin emphasized that physicians have an important role to play in the initiation, duration, and exclusivity of breastfeeding. This includes promoting enrichment of the pregnancy experience with prenatal education and increased support from health care providers and peers. At delivery, obstetricians can delay cord clamping to facilitate early breastfeeding. They can also support the elimination of the central nursery in hospitals so that mother and baby stay together from birth. In addition, prescriptions can be written for breast pumps, which are covered by Medicaid.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hamner and coauthors disclosed having no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Franklin also disclosed having no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

Hormonal therapy remains the most effective strategy for managing heavy menstrual bleeding in women with von Willebrand disease, based on data from one of three systematic reviews.

Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.

The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.

In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.

The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.

The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.

The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.

The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.

The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.

However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.

The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
 

Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines

The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.

“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.

“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.

“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”

Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”

Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.

The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Hormonal therapy remains the most effective strategy for managing heavy menstrual bleeding in women with von Willebrand disease, based on data from one of three systematic reviews.

Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.

The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.

In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.

The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.

The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.

The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.

The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.

The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.

However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.

The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
 

Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines

The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.

“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.

“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.

“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”

Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”

Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.

The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Hormonal therapy remains the most effective strategy for managing heavy menstrual bleeding in women with von Willebrand disease, based on data from one of three systematic reviews.

Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.

The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.

In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.

The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.

The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.

The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.

The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.

The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.

However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.

The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
 

Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines

The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.

“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.

“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.

“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”

Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”

Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.

The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief summary of discussions centering around reproductive health experiences and obstetrical care for gender-diverse patients from the recent Society of Maternal & Fetal Medicine meeting. Two presentations featured patient perspectives combined with physician lectures to provide a comprehensive outlook on unique reproductive care needs for this growing population.

One of the speakers, Trystan Reese, is a transgender activist, educator, and transgender male who chose to carry his own pregnancy and subsequently delivered his son in 2017. During the summit, he described many barriers that he faced during his pregnancy and offered providers suggestions on how to improve the care for members of the gender-diverse community seeking to start a family.

We often think of conception and pregnancy as experiences unique to one gender. This is simply not the case. In discussing preconceptual care and pregnancy, it is paramount for providers to make the distinction between gender identity and natal sex. Gender identity is an internal sense of self in relation to natal sex. Depending on this intrinsic feeling, people may identify as cisgender, transgender, or as a gender outside of the standard binary. Natal sex describes biologic characteristics such as chromosomal makeup, reproductive anatomy, and secondary sexual changes. In keeping these distinctions in mind, pregnancy is therefore exclusive to a person’s natal sex, not gender identity. One of the biggest challenges in caring for transgender patients who desire pregnancy, is the psychological distress related to the gendered notions surrounding this experience.¹

There are many ways in which patients encounter unintentional marginalization within the medical system. For example, many electronic medical record systems don’t allow for pronouns or give error messages if the patient’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth. Patients who attend prenatal appointments or birth classes are given documents that center around cisgender women and heterosexual relationships. The labor and delivery wards themselves typically include language such as “maternity,” and birth certificates have distinct “mother” and “father” denotations.¹ Insurance coverage for prenatal care and delivery can be problematic if a patient who is assigned female at birth has changed their gender marker to “male” on their insurance card.

Many of these roadblocks can be ameliorated by utilizing more inclusive terminology. Terms such as “maternal” can be replaced with “pregnant patients, parent, or patients giving birth.” Names of maternity wards can be altered to perinatal units, which is more inclusive and more descriptive of the wide variety of patients that may experience childbirth and parenthood.¹ Introducing “you-centered” language can also be helpful. Instead of saying “women may find ...” providers can try saying “patients may find ...” or “individuals may find.”¹

Most of the medical and obstetrical care of gender-diverse patients is routine. Prenatal labs, aneuploidy screening, ultrasounds, and fetal surveillance do not differ between transgender and cisgender patients. However, the experience of pregnancy itself can significantly heighten feelings of dysphoria as it inherently leads to patients confronting aspects of their biological sex.² Because of the teratogenic nature of testosterone, patients are required to stop taking testosterone prior to conception and for the duration of pregnancy. This can also heighten dysphoria and lead to increased rates of anxiety and depression.³

Many transgender patients can safely achieve a normal vaginal birth.⁴ A small survey of 41 people demonstrated that more transgender men who had taken testosterone were delivered by cesarean section (36% vs. 19%).³ Staff training is an important aspect of caring for a transgender patient in labor to ensure that all members of the labor unit are cognizant of appropriate name and pronoun usage. Another interesting, although unsurprising, fact is that many transgender gestational parents chose a community-based (out-of-hospital) birth according to a 2014 study.¹ This is predominantly because of the discrimination patients face when delivering within a hospital setting.

Postpartum depression screening should be conducted prior to patients leaving the hospital and individualized during postpartum appointments. Reinitiation of testosterone can occur 4-6 weeks after delivery.¹

While pregnancy can pose some unique challenges to gender-diverse individuals, these intricacies are not insurmountable. The result of pregnancy, regardless of one’s gender identity, is the same – parenthood. One patient’s description of his experience was particularly poignant: “Pregnancy and childbirth were very male experiences for me. When I birthed my children, I was born into fatherhood.”¹ It is up to all providers to modify clinical settings, as well as our patient interactions and use of language, if we are to provide inclusion in obstetrics.^1,5

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Brandt JS et al. “Understanding intersections: Care for transgender and gender diverse patient populations.” SMFM 2022 annual meeting. 2022 Feb 2.

2. Hoffkling A et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 8;17(Suppl 2):332.

3. Light AD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1120-7.

4. Moseson H et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2021 Nov 17;22(1-2):30-41.

5. Brandt JS et al. Obstetrical care for trans*person, in “Trans*gynecology: Managing transgender patients in obstetrics and gynecology practice.” (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief summary of discussions centering around reproductive health experiences and obstetrical care for gender-diverse patients from the recent Society of Maternal & Fetal Medicine meeting. Two presentations featured patient perspectives combined with physician lectures to provide a comprehensive outlook on unique reproductive care needs for this growing population.

One of the speakers, Trystan Reese, is a transgender activist, educator, and transgender male who chose to carry his own pregnancy and subsequently delivered his son in 2017. During the summit, he described many barriers that he faced during his pregnancy and offered providers suggestions on how to improve the care for members of the gender-diverse community seeking to start a family.

We often think of conception and pregnancy as experiences unique to one gender. This is simply not the case. In discussing preconceptual care and pregnancy, it is paramount for providers to make the distinction between gender identity and natal sex. Gender identity is an internal sense of self in relation to natal sex. Depending on this intrinsic feeling, people may identify as cisgender, transgender, or as a gender outside of the standard binary. Natal sex describes biologic characteristics such as chromosomal makeup, reproductive anatomy, and secondary sexual changes. In keeping these distinctions in mind, pregnancy is therefore exclusive to a person’s natal sex, not gender identity. One of the biggest challenges in caring for transgender patients who desire pregnancy, is the psychological distress related to the gendered notions surrounding this experience.¹

There are many ways in which patients encounter unintentional marginalization within the medical system. For example, many electronic medical record systems don’t allow for pronouns or give error messages if the patient’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth. Patients who attend prenatal appointments or birth classes are given documents that center around cisgender women and heterosexual relationships. The labor and delivery wards themselves typically include language such as “maternity,” and birth certificates have distinct “mother” and “father” denotations.¹ Insurance coverage for prenatal care and delivery can be problematic if a patient who is assigned female at birth has changed their gender marker to “male” on their insurance card.

Many of these roadblocks can be ameliorated by utilizing more inclusive terminology. Terms such as “maternal” can be replaced with “pregnant patients, parent, or patients giving birth.” Names of maternity wards can be altered to perinatal units, which is more inclusive and more descriptive of the wide variety of patients that may experience childbirth and parenthood.¹ Introducing “you-centered” language can also be helpful. Instead of saying “women may find ...” providers can try saying “patients may find ...” or “individuals may find.”¹

Most of the medical and obstetrical care of gender-diverse patients is routine. Prenatal labs, aneuploidy screening, ultrasounds, and fetal surveillance do not differ between transgender and cisgender patients. However, the experience of pregnancy itself can significantly heighten feelings of dysphoria as it inherently leads to patients confronting aspects of their biological sex.² Because of the teratogenic nature of testosterone, patients are required to stop taking testosterone prior to conception and for the duration of pregnancy. This can also heighten dysphoria and lead to increased rates of anxiety and depression.³

Many transgender patients can safely achieve a normal vaginal birth.⁴ A small survey of 41 people demonstrated that more transgender men who had taken testosterone were delivered by cesarean section (36% vs. 19%).³ Staff training is an important aspect of caring for a transgender patient in labor to ensure that all members of the labor unit are cognizant of appropriate name and pronoun usage. Another interesting, although unsurprising, fact is that many transgender gestational parents chose a community-based (out-of-hospital) birth according to a 2014 study.¹ This is predominantly because of the discrimination patients face when delivering within a hospital setting.

Postpartum depression screening should be conducted prior to patients leaving the hospital and individualized during postpartum appointments. Reinitiation of testosterone can occur 4-6 weeks after delivery.¹

While pregnancy can pose some unique challenges to gender-diverse individuals, these intricacies are not insurmountable. The result of pregnancy, regardless of one’s gender identity, is the same – parenthood. One patient’s description of his experience was particularly poignant: “Pregnancy and childbirth were very male experiences for me. When I birthed my children, I was born into fatherhood.”¹ It is up to all providers to modify clinical settings, as well as our patient interactions and use of language, if we are to provide inclusion in obstetrics.^1,5

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Brandt JS et al. “Understanding intersections: Care for transgender and gender diverse patient populations.” SMFM 2022 annual meeting. 2022 Feb 2.

2. Hoffkling A et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 8;17(Suppl 2):332.

3. Light AD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1120-7.

4. Moseson H et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2021 Nov 17;22(1-2):30-41.

5. Brandt JS et al. Obstetrical care for trans*person, in “Trans*gynecology: Managing transgender patients in obstetrics and gynecology practice.” (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief summary of discussions centering around reproductive health experiences and obstetrical care for gender-diverse patients from the recent Society of Maternal & Fetal Medicine meeting. Two presentations featured patient perspectives combined with physician lectures to provide a comprehensive outlook on unique reproductive care needs for this growing population.

One of the speakers, Trystan Reese, is a transgender activist, educator, and transgender male who chose to carry his own pregnancy and subsequently delivered his son in 2017. During the summit, he described many barriers that he faced during his pregnancy and offered providers suggestions on how to improve the care for members of the gender-diverse community seeking to start a family.

We often think of conception and pregnancy as experiences unique to one gender. This is simply not the case. In discussing preconceptual care and pregnancy, it is paramount for providers to make the distinction between gender identity and natal sex. Gender identity is an internal sense of self in relation to natal sex. Depending on this intrinsic feeling, people may identify as cisgender, transgender, or as a gender outside of the standard binary. Natal sex describes biologic characteristics such as chromosomal makeup, reproductive anatomy, and secondary sexual changes. In keeping these distinctions in mind, pregnancy is therefore exclusive to a person’s natal sex, not gender identity. One of the biggest challenges in caring for transgender patients who desire pregnancy, is the psychological distress related to the gendered notions surrounding this experience.¹

There are many ways in which patients encounter unintentional marginalization within the medical system. For example, many electronic medical record systems don’t allow for pronouns or give error messages if the patient’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth. Patients who attend prenatal appointments or birth classes are given documents that center around cisgender women and heterosexual relationships. The labor and delivery wards themselves typically include language such as “maternity,” and birth certificates have distinct “mother” and “father” denotations.¹ Insurance coverage for prenatal care and delivery can be problematic if a patient who is assigned female at birth has changed their gender marker to “male” on their insurance card.

Many of these roadblocks can be ameliorated by utilizing more inclusive terminology. Terms such as “maternal” can be replaced with “pregnant patients, parent, or patients giving birth.” Names of maternity wards can be altered to perinatal units, which is more inclusive and more descriptive of the wide variety of patients that may experience childbirth and parenthood.¹ Introducing “you-centered” language can also be helpful. Instead of saying “women may find ...” providers can try saying “patients may find ...” or “individuals may find.”¹

Most of the medical and obstetrical care of gender-diverse patients is routine. Prenatal labs, aneuploidy screening, ultrasounds, and fetal surveillance do not differ between transgender and cisgender patients. However, the experience of pregnancy itself can significantly heighten feelings of dysphoria as it inherently leads to patients confronting aspects of their biological sex.² Because of the teratogenic nature of testosterone, patients are required to stop taking testosterone prior to conception and for the duration of pregnancy. This can also heighten dysphoria and lead to increased rates of anxiety and depression.³

Many transgender patients can safely achieve a normal vaginal birth.⁴ A small survey of 41 people demonstrated that more transgender men who had taken testosterone were delivered by cesarean section (36% vs. 19%).³ Staff training is an important aspect of caring for a transgender patient in labor to ensure that all members of the labor unit are cognizant of appropriate name and pronoun usage. Another interesting, although unsurprising, fact is that many transgender gestational parents chose a community-based (out-of-hospital) birth according to a 2014 study.¹ This is predominantly because of the discrimination patients face when delivering within a hospital setting.

Postpartum depression screening should be conducted prior to patients leaving the hospital and individualized during postpartum appointments. Reinitiation of testosterone can occur 4-6 weeks after delivery.¹

While pregnancy can pose some unique challenges to gender-diverse individuals, these intricacies are not insurmountable. The result of pregnancy, regardless of one’s gender identity, is the same – parenthood. One patient’s description of his experience was particularly poignant: “Pregnancy and childbirth were very male experiences for me. When I birthed my children, I was born into fatherhood.”¹ It is up to all providers to modify clinical settings, as well as our patient interactions and use of language, if we are to provide inclusion in obstetrics.^1,5

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Brandt JS et al. “Understanding intersections: Care for transgender and gender diverse patient populations.” SMFM 2022 annual meeting. 2022 Feb 2.

2. Hoffkling A et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 8;17(Suppl 2):332.

3. Light AD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1120-7.

4. Moseson H et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2021 Nov 17;22(1-2):30-41.

5. Brandt JS et al. Obstetrical care for trans*person, in “Trans*gynecology: Managing transgender patients in obstetrics and gynecology practice.” (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Recent evidence has shown that women who contract COVID-19 during pregnancy are at increased risk for pregnancy loss and neonatal death. Now, an analysis of pathology data from dozens of perinatal deaths shows how.

Unlike numerous pathogens that kill the fetus by infecting it directly, SARS-CoV-2 causes “widespread and severe” destruction of the placenta that deprives the fetus of oxygen, a team of 44 researchers in 12 countries concluded after examining 64 stillbirths and four neonatal deaths in which the placentas were infected with the virus. They noted that such damage occurs in a small percentage of pregnant women with COVID and that all the women in the study had not been vaccinated against the disease.

The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Nearly all placentas had each of three features that pathologists have dubbed SARS-CoV-2 placentitis: large deposits of fibrin, a clotting protein that obstructs the flow of blood, death of cells in the trophoblast, and an unusual form of inflammation called chronic histiocytic intervillositis. Some had other abnormalities that could have exacerbated the condition.

The researchers called the extent of damage “striking,” affecting 77.7% of the placenta on average. The virus did not appear to harm fetal tissue, but placental damage “was extensive and highly destructive,” they write. Notably, none of the women in the analysis were known to have severe COVID.
 

Virus seen ‘chewing up the placenta’

David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

“I don’t know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity,” Dr. Schwartz told this news organization. “The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus.”

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that maternal COVID increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID, for a relative risk of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.15).

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04 (95% CI, 3.28-4.97). Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues said immunization, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Dr. Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman.

The analysis comes on the heels of a study from the National Institutes of Health linking severe to moderate COVID infection to greater risk of other pregnancy complications: cesarean and preterm delivery, death during childbirth, postpartum hemorrhaging, and non-COVID infections.

Diana Bianchi, MD, director of NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said those findings underscore the need for pregnant women to be vaccinated. (The shots have been shown to be safe for pregnant women.)

Denise Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the new analysis, said the findings may have important clinical implications. In addition to ensuring that pregnant patients are fully vaccinated, she said “there may be opportunities to more closely monitor the placenta during pregnancy using imaging modalities such as ultrasound.”

Even in the presence of severe abnormalities, a fetus that has reached a viable gestational age could potentially be delivered prior to stillbirth, Dr. Jamieson said. The 64 stillbirths in the analysis ranged from 15 to 39.2 weeks of gestation, with an average of 30 weeks. Eight were delivered at full term.

However, additional studies are needed to support monitoring of placental changes, she said: “It is not ready for prime time now.”

Christopher Zahn, MD, vice president of practice activities the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cautioned that data on COVID and pregnancy complications remain limited.

The findings in this analysis “do not prove the association between COVID-19 infection and neonatal outcomes,” Dr. Zahn said. “While stillbirth could potentially be another adverse outcome for pregnant people who contract COVID-19, currently we don’t have enough data to confirm that a COVID-19 infection at any point in pregnancy indicates increased risk of stillbirth.”

He added that ACOG continues to strongly recommend vaccination against COVID for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, or planning to be pregnant.

Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Jamieson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author reported receiving financial support from the Slovak Research and Development Agency. Another reported funding from the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research and the Fetus for Life charity.

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

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.