User login
Antenatal corticosteroids may increase risk for mental and behavioral disorders
according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.
After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.
“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”
Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.
The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
Pause expanded use?
“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.
To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.
The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
A range of disorders
In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).
In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.
“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.
Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.
The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.
SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.
according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.
After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.
“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”
Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.
The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
Pause expanded use?
“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.
To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.
The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
A range of disorders
In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).
In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.
“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.
Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.
The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.
SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.
according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.
After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.
“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”
Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.
The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
Pause expanded use?
“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.
To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.
The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
A range of disorders
In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).
In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.
“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.
Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.
The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.
SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure.
Major finding: After adjustment for such variables as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure (HR, 1.33). Among children born at term, the adjusted HR was 1.47.
Study details: A population-based retrospective cohort study that included 670,097 children in Finland.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The authors had no conflict of interest disclosures.
Source: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.
Addressing racism, bias in the American maternal mortality crisis
This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.
The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.
Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.
Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”
“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic
The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.
Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.
“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.
It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.
Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
Solution: Extending coverage
During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.
Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.
“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”
If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”
Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.
“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”
Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.
Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.
Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”
One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.
Solution: Expanding care access
“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.
Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.
The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.
“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.
Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.
“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting
The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:
- Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
- Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
- Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.
The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.
“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”
That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.
Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.
A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.
This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.
Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.
In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.
“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.
However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering
Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.
“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”
During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.
In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:
First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.
“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”
Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”
The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.
Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”
That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.
Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.
Hope for solutions: Progress and promise
Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.
In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.
“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”
Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.
“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.
Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.
Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”
Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.
“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.
”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”
This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.
The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.
Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.
Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”
“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic
The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.
Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.
“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.
It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.
Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
Solution: Extending coverage
During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.
Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.
“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”
If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”
Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.
“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”
Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.
Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.
Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”
One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.
Solution: Expanding care access
“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.
Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.
The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.
“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.
Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.
“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting
The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:
- Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
- Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
- Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.
The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.
“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”
That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.
Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.
A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.
This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.
Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.
In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.
“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.
However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering
Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.
“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”
During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.
In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:
First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.
“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”
Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”
The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.
Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”
That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.
Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.
Hope for solutions: Progress and promise
Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.
In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.
“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”
Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.
“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.
Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.
Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”
Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.
“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.
”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”
This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.
The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.
Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.
Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”
“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic
The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.
Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.
“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.
It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.
Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
Solution: Extending coverage
During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.
Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.
“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”
If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”
Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.
“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”
Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.
Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.
Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”
One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.
Solution: Expanding care access
“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.
Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.
The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.
“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.
Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.
“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting
The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:
- Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
- Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
- Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.
The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.
“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”
That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.
Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.
A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.
This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.
Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.
In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.
“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.
However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering
Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.
“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”
During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.
In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:
First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.
“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”
Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”
The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.
Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”
That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.
Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.
Hope for solutions: Progress and promise
Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.
In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.
“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”
Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.
“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.
Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.
Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”
Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.
“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.
”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”
FDA approves medication to treat heavy menstrual bleeding related to fibroids
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
The medication, marketed as Oriahnn, is an estrogen and progestin combination product that consists of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules packaged together for oral use, according to an FDA announcement.
“Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting premenopausal women, and one of the most common symptoms from fibroids is heavy menstrual bleeding,” Christine P. Nguyen, MD, acting director of the division of urology, obstetrics, and gynecology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. “Although surgical treatments, such as hysterectomy, are available, patients may not qualify for surgery or want the procedure. Various nonsurgical therapies are used to treat fibroid-related heavy menstrual bleeding, but none have been FDA approved specifically for this use. Today’s approval provides an FDA-approved medical treatment option for these patients.”
Fibroids, which occur most commonly in women aged 35-49 years, typically resolve after menopause but are a leading reason for hysterectomy in the United States, according to the release.
Researchers established the efficacy of the treatment in two clinical trials that included 591 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Participants received the drug or placebo for 6 months. The investigators defined heavy menstrual bleeding as at least two menstrual cycles with greater than 80 mL of menstrual blood loss. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who achieved menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL at the final month and 50% or greater reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from baseline to the final month. In one trial, 69% of patients who received Oriahnn met this endpoint, compared with 9% of patients who received placebo. In the second study, 77% of patients who received the drug achieved this endpoint, compared with 11% of patients who received placebo.
Oriahnn may cause bone loss that may not be completely recovered after stopping treatment, so women should not take the medication for more than 24 months, according to the FDA announcement. Health care professionals may recommend bone density scans before and during treatment.
The most common side effects included hot flushes, headache, fatigue, and irregular vaginal bleeding. The drug’s label includes a boxed warning about a risk of strokes and blood clots, especially in women at increased risk for these events. Contraindications include osteoporosis, a history of breast cancer or other hormonally sensitive cancer, liver disease, and abnormal uterine bleeding. Oriahnn does not prevent pregnancy and may increase blood pressure, according to the press release. AbbVie markets the drug.
Improving care for women who have experienced stillbirth
Think of the current standard of care and do the opposite
One of hardest parts of being an obstetrician is taking care of patients who experience a stillbirth. I am very comfortable with the care of a grieving patient and I always have been, although I am not sure why. I have a model of care that I have evolved in my 16 years since medical school graduation. This model is not based on formal instruction because I received none, but on my natural instincts of what a grieving mom and her family need to hear and receive in the worst moments of their lives. All obstetrics providers grieve the loss of the baby, but often not with the patient but on our own. We may do this because we want to respect the patient’s privacy or because we are not sure of the words to say. I hope I can provide some guidance for those who struggle with what to do.
I delivered my first stillborn baby as a third-year medical student. My mentor, a chief resident, saw something in me and encouraged me to care for this mother. She had twins and one baby was still living, but the prognosis was poor since this was the surviving twin from a monochorionic diamniotic pregnancy. On the day of the mom’s induction, I just pulled up a chair and talked with her. We talked about her life, the loss of the first baby several weeks before, and her hope that her surviving son would be okay. She felt so bonded to me that she refused to push until I was there. Her delivery is still firm in my mind. I still remember 17 years later the room she delivered in.
My first loss (stillbirth) as a resident was my intern year – a beautiful baby named Jude, who was stillborn at 39 weeks. After delivering Jude, I asked the family about the funeral arrangements. Three days later, I attended his funeral. I looked all around for the mother’s attending doctors but none of them were there. I remember thinking then that it was a given that they would be there, but now I know that it is rare. I also learned a lot about the grief a stillborn baby brings while listening to Jude’s father’s eulogy. He talked about how Jude would never bake cookies with Aunt Jane, ride the slide with cousin Chris, or put on a yellow backpack and ride the bus on the first day of school. Because of this eulogy, I understood this unique kind of grief that these losses bring early in my training.
I delivered many losses in my residency. The attendings left soon after the birth and I stayed behind with the family. I sat and counseled the families, and I helped them make memories. I realized that to care for these patients, I would need to trust my instincts because there was no formal and little informal training on how to care for families who lost their babies.
Once I completed residency, I was really able to do my “thing.” At loss deliveries, I was able to model for residents my method of care. I showed them that families want and need attention, support, and guidance. I modeled for them how to deliver and greet the baby. That it is not necessary to leave the room right after the birth, and it is okay to grieve and help families meet their babies. I modeled commenting on the baby’s features, on who they looked like. I showed how laughing about how the baby has grandma’s nose is okay. I showed them that it is okay to ask to hold and get a picture taken with the baby. I showed them that these are the only moments these families will get with their babies, and it is our job to help them do this. The family will have many moments alone in the days and weeks to come. They need our support and guidance. It is a part of being an ob.gyn. to care for families after stillbirths, and we do not want our patients to feel abandoned during this time by those they entrust to care for them.
I also was able to create a model for aftercare. I call my families often after they go home. Sometimes I catch them in the anger stage of the grief process and I let them vent. I work through this with them, and I answer their hardest and sometimes accusatory questions regarding care leading up to the diagnosis. I am not saying this is easy for me or for them. I think fear of these tough conversations is a barrier to giving the emotional support that these families need. I work through this with them in an honest and open manner. I also call to check on the patients as much as possible, especially on anniversaries. I am not saying that all providers must follow this model. This is my passion and is natural for me, but data clearly show that the standard of emotional care we provide is not what patients need at this time. Thankfully, there is an amazing resource of grief counselors, social workers, online resources, and support groups for these families to help them get through the tragedy. These resources, however, are not the provider who spent this precious time with them and their beloved baby, and our emotional support is invaluable.
This past year has been very eventful for me. One of my patients delivered a new baby, after a prior loss, and asked if we could teach together. I had mentioned that everything I do with stillbirths is not based on my residency education, but on my experience and instinctual feeling of what families need. She knew from friends in bereavement circles that they felt that their care was different. We started teaching last summer and have done 10 training sessions to date; hopefully we will continue to teach new groups of nurses, residents, medical students, doulas, and physician assistant students each year.
This year also was eventful because I discovered the Star Legacy Foundation, a national not-for-profit organization with the goal of spreading awareness, education, and prevention regarding stillbirth. I attended their 2019 Summit in Minnesota. I thought I would meet many more doctors and midwives like myself, and I would learn even more about care for bereaved patients. However, that summer I learned preventing stillbirth may be possible from the then chief medical officer of Scotland, Catherine Calderwood, MB ChB. She talked about the preventive protocol she had created that had reduced the stillbirth rate by 23%. Because I was one of only five ob.gyn. nonspeaker attendees in a room of 400, I realized I had a real opportunity to try to bring some model for prevention to the United States. I brought the U.K. protocol to my practice and we have been doing it now for 9 months. (See “Decreased fetal movement: Time to educate patients and ourselves” at mdedge.com/pediatrics.)
I have had a year to think about why the U.S. stillbirth rate is higher than that of many high-income nations and why we have the lowest annual rate of reduction in the 2016 Lancet series among high resource nations.1 I think it is due to lack of education and training for providers in stillbirth prevention and care, which has led to further marginalization and stigmatization of bereaved moms. This has pushed them further into the shadows and makes it taboo to share their stories. It is providers being fearful to even mention to patients that stillbirth still happens. It is the lack of any protocol on how to educate patients and providers about fetal movement, and what to do if pregnant women complain about a decrease or change in fetal movement. I think a lot of this stems from an innate discomfort that obstetric providers have in the care of these patients. That if women felt cared for and empowered to tell their stories, there would be more efforts at stillbirth education and prevention.
I often think of an experience that the founder of Star Legacy, Lindsey Wimmer, experienced when she lost her son, Garrett, 16 years ago. She told a story in the documentary, “Don’t talk about the baby.” She tells that on the first night of the induction, the nurse came in and told her that the attending wanted to turn off the oxytocin so “she could get her rest.” I heard this and immediately knew the attending’s true reason for turning off the oxytocin. Lindsey then said she knew it was because the attending did not want to wake up to deliver a dead baby. I wrote Lindsey that day and told her I completely agreed and apologized on behalf of my profession for that care. She wrote me back that she had waited 16 years to have a provider validate her feelings about this. I told her I think her doctor was fearful and uncomfortable with this birth and was avoiding it, but I believe with better education and training this can change. I want to deliver babies like Garrett during my shift, because it is giving this vital care that reminds me why I became a doctor in the first place.
I know there are many providers out there who follow a similar model, but I want more providers to do so, and so does the bereavement community. In one study of 20 parents, all but 2 were frustrated about how the ob.gyn. and staff handled their deliveries.2 I truly believe that every person who delivers babies does it because they love it. Part of doing this job we love is realizing there will be times of great sadness. I also believe if this model of care is attempted by wary providers, they will quickly realize that this is what patients and their families need. With this care, stillbirth may become less of a taboo subject, and our stillbirth rate may fall.
Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her a [email protected].
References
1. “Stillbirths 2016: ending preventable stillbirths.” Series from The Lancet journals. Published: Jan. 20, 2016.
2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Nov 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
Think of the current standard of care and do the opposite
Think of the current standard of care and do the opposite
One of hardest parts of being an obstetrician is taking care of patients who experience a stillbirth. I am very comfortable with the care of a grieving patient and I always have been, although I am not sure why. I have a model of care that I have evolved in my 16 years since medical school graduation. This model is not based on formal instruction because I received none, but on my natural instincts of what a grieving mom and her family need to hear and receive in the worst moments of their lives. All obstetrics providers grieve the loss of the baby, but often not with the patient but on our own. We may do this because we want to respect the patient’s privacy or because we are not sure of the words to say. I hope I can provide some guidance for those who struggle with what to do.
I delivered my first stillborn baby as a third-year medical student. My mentor, a chief resident, saw something in me and encouraged me to care for this mother. She had twins and one baby was still living, but the prognosis was poor since this was the surviving twin from a monochorionic diamniotic pregnancy. On the day of the mom’s induction, I just pulled up a chair and talked with her. We talked about her life, the loss of the first baby several weeks before, and her hope that her surviving son would be okay. She felt so bonded to me that she refused to push until I was there. Her delivery is still firm in my mind. I still remember 17 years later the room she delivered in.
My first loss (stillbirth) as a resident was my intern year – a beautiful baby named Jude, who was stillborn at 39 weeks. After delivering Jude, I asked the family about the funeral arrangements. Three days later, I attended his funeral. I looked all around for the mother’s attending doctors but none of them were there. I remember thinking then that it was a given that they would be there, but now I know that it is rare. I also learned a lot about the grief a stillborn baby brings while listening to Jude’s father’s eulogy. He talked about how Jude would never bake cookies with Aunt Jane, ride the slide with cousin Chris, or put on a yellow backpack and ride the bus on the first day of school. Because of this eulogy, I understood this unique kind of grief that these losses bring early in my training.
I delivered many losses in my residency. The attendings left soon after the birth and I stayed behind with the family. I sat and counseled the families, and I helped them make memories. I realized that to care for these patients, I would need to trust my instincts because there was no formal and little informal training on how to care for families who lost their babies.
Once I completed residency, I was really able to do my “thing.” At loss deliveries, I was able to model for residents my method of care. I showed them that families want and need attention, support, and guidance. I modeled for them how to deliver and greet the baby. That it is not necessary to leave the room right after the birth, and it is okay to grieve and help families meet their babies. I modeled commenting on the baby’s features, on who they looked like. I showed how laughing about how the baby has grandma’s nose is okay. I showed them that it is okay to ask to hold and get a picture taken with the baby. I showed them that these are the only moments these families will get with their babies, and it is our job to help them do this. The family will have many moments alone in the days and weeks to come. They need our support and guidance. It is a part of being an ob.gyn. to care for families after stillbirths, and we do not want our patients to feel abandoned during this time by those they entrust to care for them.
I also was able to create a model for aftercare. I call my families often after they go home. Sometimes I catch them in the anger stage of the grief process and I let them vent. I work through this with them, and I answer their hardest and sometimes accusatory questions regarding care leading up to the diagnosis. I am not saying this is easy for me or for them. I think fear of these tough conversations is a barrier to giving the emotional support that these families need. I work through this with them in an honest and open manner. I also call to check on the patients as much as possible, especially on anniversaries. I am not saying that all providers must follow this model. This is my passion and is natural for me, but data clearly show that the standard of emotional care we provide is not what patients need at this time. Thankfully, there is an amazing resource of grief counselors, social workers, online resources, and support groups for these families to help them get through the tragedy. These resources, however, are not the provider who spent this precious time with them and their beloved baby, and our emotional support is invaluable.
This past year has been very eventful for me. One of my patients delivered a new baby, after a prior loss, and asked if we could teach together. I had mentioned that everything I do with stillbirths is not based on my residency education, but on my experience and instinctual feeling of what families need. She knew from friends in bereavement circles that they felt that their care was different. We started teaching last summer and have done 10 training sessions to date; hopefully we will continue to teach new groups of nurses, residents, medical students, doulas, and physician assistant students each year.
This year also was eventful because I discovered the Star Legacy Foundation, a national not-for-profit organization with the goal of spreading awareness, education, and prevention regarding stillbirth. I attended their 2019 Summit in Minnesota. I thought I would meet many more doctors and midwives like myself, and I would learn even more about care for bereaved patients. However, that summer I learned preventing stillbirth may be possible from the then chief medical officer of Scotland, Catherine Calderwood, MB ChB. She talked about the preventive protocol she had created that had reduced the stillbirth rate by 23%. Because I was one of only five ob.gyn. nonspeaker attendees in a room of 400, I realized I had a real opportunity to try to bring some model for prevention to the United States. I brought the U.K. protocol to my practice and we have been doing it now for 9 months. (See “Decreased fetal movement: Time to educate patients and ourselves” at mdedge.com/pediatrics.)
I have had a year to think about why the U.S. stillbirth rate is higher than that of many high-income nations and why we have the lowest annual rate of reduction in the 2016 Lancet series among high resource nations.1 I think it is due to lack of education and training for providers in stillbirth prevention and care, which has led to further marginalization and stigmatization of bereaved moms. This has pushed them further into the shadows and makes it taboo to share their stories. It is providers being fearful to even mention to patients that stillbirth still happens. It is the lack of any protocol on how to educate patients and providers about fetal movement, and what to do if pregnant women complain about a decrease or change in fetal movement. I think a lot of this stems from an innate discomfort that obstetric providers have in the care of these patients. That if women felt cared for and empowered to tell their stories, there would be more efforts at stillbirth education and prevention.
I often think of an experience that the founder of Star Legacy, Lindsey Wimmer, experienced when she lost her son, Garrett, 16 years ago. She told a story in the documentary, “Don’t talk about the baby.” She tells that on the first night of the induction, the nurse came in and told her that the attending wanted to turn off the oxytocin so “she could get her rest.” I heard this and immediately knew the attending’s true reason for turning off the oxytocin. Lindsey then said she knew it was because the attending did not want to wake up to deliver a dead baby. I wrote Lindsey that day and told her I completely agreed and apologized on behalf of my profession for that care. She wrote me back that she had waited 16 years to have a provider validate her feelings about this. I told her I think her doctor was fearful and uncomfortable with this birth and was avoiding it, but I believe with better education and training this can change. I want to deliver babies like Garrett during my shift, because it is giving this vital care that reminds me why I became a doctor in the first place.
I know there are many providers out there who follow a similar model, but I want more providers to do so, and so does the bereavement community. In one study of 20 parents, all but 2 were frustrated about how the ob.gyn. and staff handled their deliveries.2 I truly believe that every person who delivers babies does it because they love it. Part of doing this job we love is realizing there will be times of great sadness. I also believe if this model of care is attempted by wary providers, they will quickly realize that this is what patients and their families need. With this care, stillbirth may become less of a taboo subject, and our stillbirth rate may fall.
Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her a [email protected].
References
1. “Stillbirths 2016: ending preventable stillbirths.” Series from The Lancet journals. Published: Jan. 20, 2016.
2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Nov 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
One of hardest parts of being an obstetrician is taking care of patients who experience a stillbirth. I am very comfortable with the care of a grieving patient and I always have been, although I am not sure why. I have a model of care that I have evolved in my 16 years since medical school graduation. This model is not based on formal instruction because I received none, but on my natural instincts of what a grieving mom and her family need to hear and receive in the worst moments of their lives. All obstetrics providers grieve the loss of the baby, but often not with the patient but on our own. We may do this because we want to respect the patient’s privacy or because we are not sure of the words to say. I hope I can provide some guidance for those who struggle with what to do.
I delivered my first stillborn baby as a third-year medical student. My mentor, a chief resident, saw something in me and encouraged me to care for this mother. She had twins and one baby was still living, but the prognosis was poor since this was the surviving twin from a monochorionic diamniotic pregnancy. On the day of the mom’s induction, I just pulled up a chair and talked with her. We talked about her life, the loss of the first baby several weeks before, and her hope that her surviving son would be okay. She felt so bonded to me that she refused to push until I was there. Her delivery is still firm in my mind. I still remember 17 years later the room she delivered in.
My first loss (stillbirth) as a resident was my intern year – a beautiful baby named Jude, who was stillborn at 39 weeks. After delivering Jude, I asked the family about the funeral arrangements. Three days later, I attended his funeral. I looked all around for the mother’s attending doctors but none of them were there. I remember thinking then that it was a given that they would be there, but now I know that it is rare. I also learned a lot about the grief a stillborn baby brings while listening to Jude’s father’s eulogy. He talked about how Jude would never bake cookies with Aunt Jane, ride the slide with cousin Chris, or put on a yellow backpack and ride the bus on the first day of school. Because of this eulogy, I understood this unique kind of grief that these losses bring early in my training.
I delivered many losses in my residency. The attendings left soon after the birth and I stayed behind with the family. I sat and counseled the families, and I helped them make memories. I realized that to care for these patients, I would need to trust my instincts because there was no formal and little informal training on how to care for families who lost their babies.
Once I completed residency, I was really able to do my “thing.” At loss deliveries, I was able to model for residents my method of care. I showed them that families want and need attention, support, and guidance. I modeled for them how to deliver and greet the baby. That it is not necessary to leave the room right after the birth, and it is okay to grieve and help families meet their babies. I modeled commenting on the baby’s features, on who they looked like. I showed how laughing about how the baby has grandma’s nose is okay. I showed them that it is okay to ask to hold and get a picture taken with the baby. I showed them that these are the only moments these families will get with their babies, and it is our job to help them do this. The family will have many moments alone in the days and weeks to come. They need our support and guidance. It is a part of being an ob.gyn. to care for families after stillbirths, and we do not want our patients to feel abandoned during this time by those they entrust to care for them.
I also was able to create a model for aftercare. I call my families often after they go home. Sometimes I catch them in the anger stage of the grief process and I let them vent. I work through this with them, and I answer their hardest and sometimes accusatory questions regarding care leading up to the diagnosis. I am not saying this is easy for me or for them. I think fear of these tough conversations is a barrier to giving the emotional support that these families need. I work through this with them in an honest and open manner. I also call to check on the patients as much as possible, especially on anniversaries. I am not saying that all providers must follow this model. This is my passion and is natural for me, but data clearly show that the standard of emotional care we provide is not what patients need at this time. Thankfully, there is an amazing resource of grief counselors, social workers, online resources, and support groups for these families to help them get through the tragedy. These resources, however, are not the provider who spent this precious time with them and their beloved baby, and our emotional support is invaluable.
This past year has been very eventful for me. One of my patients delivered a new baby, after a prior loss, and asked if we could teach together. I had mentioned that everything I do with stillbirths is not based on my residency education, but on my experience and instinctual feeling of what families need. She knew from friends in bereavement circles that they felt that their care was different. We started teaching last summer and have done 10 training sessions to date; hopefully we will continue to teach new groups of nurses, residents, medical students, doulas, and physician assistant students each year.
This year also was eventful because I discovered the Star Legacy Foundation, a national not-for-profit organization with the goal of spreading awareness, education, and prevention regarding stillbirth. I attended their 2019 Summit in Minnesota. I thought I would meet many more doctors and midwives like myself, and I would learn even more about care for bereaved patients. However, that summer I learned preventing stillbirth may be possible from the then chief medical officer of Scotland, Catherine Calderwood, MB ChB. She talked about the preventive protocol she had created that had reduced the stillbirth rate by 23%. Because I was one of only five ob.gyn. nonspeaker attendees in a room of 400, I realized I had a real opportunity to try to bring some model for prevention to the United States. I brought the U.K. protocol to my practice and we have been doing it now for 9 months. (See “Decreased fetal movement: Time to educate patients and ourselves” at mdedge.com/pediatrics.)
I have had a year to think about why the U.S. stillbirth rate is higher than that of many high-income nations and why we have the lowest annual rate of reduction in the 2016 Lancet series among high resource nations.1 I think it is due to lack of education and training for providers in stillbirth prevention and care, which has led to further marginalization and stigmatization of bereaved moms. This has pushed them further into the shadows and makes it taboo to share their stories. It is providers being fearful to even mention to patients that stillbirth still happens. It is the lack of any protocol on how to educate patients and providers about fetal movement, and what to do if pregnant women complain about a decrease or change in fetal movement. I think a lot of this stems from an innate discomfort that obstetric providers have in the care of these patients. That if women felt cared for and empowered to tell their stories, there would be more efforts at stillbirth education and prevention.
I often think of an experience that the founder of Star Legacy, Lindsey Wimmer, experienced when she lost her son, Garrett, 16 years ago. She told a story in the documentary, “Don’t talk about the baby.” She tells that on the first night of the induction, the nurse came in and told her that the attending wanted to turn off the oxytocin so “she could get her rest.” I heard this and immediately knew the attending’s true reason for turning off the oxytocin. Lindsey then said she knew it was because the attending did not want to wake up to deliver a dead baby. I wrote Lindsey that day and told her I completely agreed and apologized on behalf of my profession for that care. She wrote me back that she had waited 16 years to have a provider validate her feelings about this. I told her I think her doctor was fearful and uncomfortable with this birth and was avoiding it, but I believe with better education and training this can change. I want to deliver babies like Garrett during my shift, because it is giving this vital care that reminds me why I became a doctor in the first place.
I know there are many providers out there who follow a similar model, but I want more providers to do so, and so does the bereavement community. In one study of 20 parents, all but 2 were frustrated about how the ob.gyn. and staff handled their deliveries.2 I truly believe that every person who delivers babies does it because they love it. Part of doing this job we love is realizing there will be times of great sadness. I also believe if this model of care is attempted by wary providers, they will quickly realize that this is what patients and their families need. With this care, stillbirth may become less of a taboo subject, and our stillbirth rate may fall.
Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her a [email protected].
References
1. “Stillbirths 2016: ending preventable stillbirths.” Series from The Lancet journals. Published: Jan. 20, 2016.
2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Nov 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
Placental injury reported in women with COVID-19
Neonates appear healthy so far
Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.
Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.
Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.
Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”
To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.
A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.
The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
Key findings
Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).
Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.
In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.
Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”
There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
Clinical implications
The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.
The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.
Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”
One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
Valuable insight
“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.
“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.
Neonates appear healthy so far
Neonates appear healthy so far
Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.
Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.
Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.
Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”
To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.
A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.
The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
Key findings
Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).
Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.
In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.
Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”
There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
Clinical implications
The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.
The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.
Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”
One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
Valuable insight
“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.
“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.
Maternal vascular malperfusion and intervillous thrombi were more common in the placentas of women infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with historic controls, report researchers who conducted the first-of-its-kind case series in the English literature. Nevertheless, the neonates in the report appear to be healthy so far and all tested negative for the virus.
Although the series examining placentas from 16 women is small, it carries a larger implication – that increased antenatal surveillance for pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be indicated, the researchers noted.
Furthermore, the results could align with other reports of coagulation and vascular abnormalities among people with COVID-19. “I would say that our findings fit into that larger picture of vascular injury. This is developing, and there are some significant ways that these feeder vessels to the placenta are different, but if this is the emerging paradigm, our findings can fit into it,” Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.
Prior case series reported in Wuhan, China, do not currently suggest that pregnant women are more likely to experience severe COVID-19, in contrast to observations during severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks. “However,” the researchers noted, “adverse perinatal outcomes have been reported, including increased risks of miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth.”
To learn more, Dr. Goldstein, lead author Elisheva D. Shanes, MD, and colleagues examined the histology of placentas from women with COVID-19 giving birth between March 18 and May 5, 2020. They compared these placentas with over 17,000 historic controls and 215 women who had their placentas evaluated as part of a melanoma history study.
A total of 10 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 upon presentation to labor and delivery, 4 others were diagnosed approximately 1 month before delivery and the remaining 2 within 1 week of delivery. Ten of the patients were symptomatic and two required oxygen. None of the patients received intubation or died. A total of 14 patients delivered at term, 1 delivered at 34 weeks, and the remaining case experienced a 16-week intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). The IUFD was excluded from subsequent statistical analysis.
The neonates each had a 5-minute Apgar score of 9. Most infants were discharged on the first or second day of life, and there were no neonatal deaths.
Key findings
Of the 15 placentas, 12 featured maternal vascular malperfusion. This rate was significantly higher than historic controls (P = .046) and melanoma study controls (P = .001).
Specific features varied between groups, with decidual arteriopathy, atherosis and fibrinoid necrosis of maternal vessels, and mural hypertrophy of membrane arterioles observed more often in COVID-19 cases than in all historical controls. In addition, peripheral infarctions, decidual arteriopathy, atherosis, and fibrinoid necrosis, and mural hypertrophy being more common in COVID-19 cases than in placentas of women with a history of melanoma.
In contrast, features of fetal vascular malperfusion were observed in 12 of 15 cases, but not at rates significantly different from the control groups. Chorangiosis, villous edema, and intervillous thrombi also were more common in the COVID-19 cohort.
Dr. Goldstein was surprised they did not observe much acute or chronic inflammation. “We see chronic inflammation in the placenta in response to many viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, so you might expect similar findings, but we didn’t see any increase above the controls.”
There are a couple of case reports of histiocytic intervillositis – a particularly severe form of chronic inflammation – associated with COVID-19, “but we didn’t see that in our study,” he added.
Clinical implications
The healthy neonatal outcomes reported in the study occurred despite the placental injury, which may be caused by the redundancy built into placentas for delivering oxygen and nutrients and for removing waste.
The negative COVID-19 test results in all infants also supports existing evidence that vertical transmission of the virus is uncommon. The finding also suggests that any damage to the placenta is likely related to maternal infection.
Only one mother in the COVID-19 cohort was hypertensive, which surprised the researchers because intervillous thrombi have been associated with maternal high blood pressure. “In the context of research suggesting an increase of thrombotic and thromboembolic disorders in COVID-19,” the researchers noted, “these may represent placental formation or deposition of thrombi in response to the virus.”
One of the priorities for the researchers going forward is to monitor the longer-term outcomes of the infants, Dr. Goldstein said. “We know the people in utero during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic had higher rates of heart disease and other long-term problems, so we want to be on the lookout for something similar.”
Valuable insight
“This is a comprehensive case series of this topic, with findings worth noting and sharing in a timely fashion,” Karen Mestan, MD, associate professor of pediatrics within the division of neonatology at Northwestern University, said when asked to comment on the study.
“The information is valuable to neonatologists as the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 exposure on newborn infants are still largely unknown,” she added. “Details of placental pathology provide emerging insight and may help us understand mother-baby vertical transmission during the current pandemic.”
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Mestan had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shanes ED et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa089.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 16% in asymptomatic pregnant women at delivery
Among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, the rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Among the patients’ designated support persons, the asymptomatic carrier rate was 10%.
“If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” wrote the researchers affiliated with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Angela Bianco, MD, and colleagues conducted an observational study of women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health System between April 4 and April 15, 2020. Patients and their designated support person completed a telephone screen and underwent COVID-19 testing the day before a scheduled delivery. If support persons screened positive during the telephone interview about COVID-19 symptoms, they could not attend the birth, and patients could contact a different support person to be screened and tested. “All patients and their support persons were informed of their SARS-CoV-2 test results before admission,” the investigators wrote. “Those who tested positive were counseled regarding symptomatology that should prompt medical attention.”
In all, researchers screened 158 patients with a planned delivery, and 155 agreed to undergo COVID-19 testing. Of the 155 women tested, 24 (16%) tested positive for SARS CoV-2 infection. Among 146 support persons who had a negative interview screen and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, 14 (10%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Test results were substantially concordant among patient and support person pairs. “Among patients who tested positive for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, 11 of 19 (58%) support persons also tested positive for COVID-19 infection,” the authors reported. “Among patients who tested negative for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, only 3 of 127 (2.4%) support persons tested positive for COVID-19 infection.”
Telephone screening did not identify any of the COVID-19–positive cases. Of the 24 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, none of their newborns tested positive at birth.
“Universal testing ... provides a mechanism for more accurate counseling of patients regarding issues such as newborn skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Bianco and colleagues. At their institution, parents with COVID-19 are instructed to wear a mask and practice proper hand hygiene when caring for their newborns.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, said in an interview that the study by Bianco et al. underscores the high rate of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 infections detected with universal screening in a hospital at the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic. “Each state and hospital will need to evaluate their own data to determine the value of universal screening for their patient population. In rural parts of America that have yet to see cases, universal screening may not make sense, but these areas are likely to be few and far between. The rest of America will need to quickly get on board with universal screening to protect their labor and delivery staff.”
Testing the partner was a strength of the study. “It is reassuring that when a pregnant woman tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the rate was very, very low (2.4%) that her partner would test positive. However, it was disconcerting that telephone screening for common symptoms associated with COVID-19 was not very helpful in identifying cases,” said Dr. Waldorf, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. She was not involved in the study by Bianco et al.
One study author receives payment from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology for serving as a board examiner, receives payment from UpToDate, and serves as an expert witness in malpractice and products liability cases. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Bianco A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003985.
Among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, the rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Among the patients’ designated support persons, the asymptomatic carrier rate was 10%.
“If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” wrote the researchers affiliated with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Angela Bianco, MD, and colleagues conducted an observational study of women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health System between April 4 and April 15, 2020. Patients and their designated support person completed a telephone screen and underwent COVID-19 testing the day before a scheduled delivery. If support persons screened positive during the telephone interview about COVID-19 symptoms, they could not attend the birth, and patients could contact a different support person to be screened and tested. “All patients and their support persons were informed of their SARS-CoV-2 test results before admission,” the investigators wrote. “Those who tested positive were counseled regarding symptomatology that should prompt medical attention.”
In all, researchers screened 158 patients with a planned delivery, and 155 agreed to undergo COVID-19 testing. Of the 155 women tested, 24 (16%) tested positive for SARS CoV-2 infection. Among 146 support persons who had a negative interview screen and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, 14 (10%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Test results were substantially concordant among patient and support person pairs. “Among patients who tested positive for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, 11 of 19 (58%) support persons also tested positive for COVID-19 infection,” the authors reported. “Among patients who tested negative for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, only 3 of 127 (2.4%) support persons tested positive for COVID-19 infection.”
Telephone screening did not identify any of the COVID-19–positive cases. Of the 24 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, none of their newborns tested positive at birth.
“Universal testing ... provides a mechanism for more accurate counseling of patients regarding issues such as newborn skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Bianco and colleagues. At their institution, parents with COVID-19 are instructed to wear a mask and practice proper hand hygiene when caring for their newborns.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, said in an interview that the study by Bianco et al. underscores the high rate of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 infections detected with universal screening in a hospital at the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic. “Each state and hospital will need to evaluate their own data to determine the value of universal screening for their patient population. In rural parts of America that have yet to see cases, universal screening may not make sense, but these areas are likely to be few and far between. The rest of America will need to quickly get on board with universal screening to protect their labor and delivery staff.”
Testing the partner was a strength of the study. “It is reassuring that when a pregnant woman tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the rate was very, very low (2.4%) that her partner would test positive. However, it was disconcerting that telephone screening for common symptoms associated with COVID-19 was not very helpful in identifying cases,” said Dr. Waldorf, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. She was not involved in the study by Bianco et al.
One study author receives payment from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology for serving as a board examiner, receives payment from UpToDate, and serves as an expert witness in malpractice and products liability cases. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Bianco A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003985.
Among women with a planned delivery in a New York City health system during the first half of April, the rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 16%, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Among the patients’ designated support persons, the asymptomatic carrier rate was 10%.
“If universal testing of pregnant patients in a high prevalence area is not performed, health care workers will be inadvertently exposed to COVID-19, unless universal precautions with personal protective equipment are taken,” wrote the researchers affiliated with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Angela Bianco, MD, and colleagues conducted an observational study of women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health System between April 4 and April 15, 2020. Patients and their designated support person completed a telephone screen and underwent COVID-19 testing the day before a scheduled delivery. If support persons screened positive during the telephone interview about COVID-19 symptoms, they could not attend the birth, and patients could contact a different support person to be screened and tested. “All patients and their support persons were informed of their SARS-CoV-2 test results before admission,” the investigators wrote. “Those who tested positive were counseled regarding symptomatology that should prompt medical attention.”
In all, researchers screened 158 patients with a planned delivery, and 155 agreed to undergo COVID-19 testing. Of the 155 women tested, 24 (16%) tested positive for SARS CoV-2 infection. Among 146 support persons who had a negative interview screen and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, 14 (10%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Test results were substantially concordant among patient and support person pairs. “Among patients who tested positive for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, 11 of 19 (58%) support persons also tested positive for COVID-19 infection,” the authors reported. “Among patients who tested negative for COVID-19 infection and had a support person present, only 3 of 127 (2.4%) support persons tested positive for COVID-19 infection.”
Telephone screening did not identify any of the COVID-19–positive cases. Of the 24 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, none of their newborns tested positive at birth.
“Universal testing ... provides a mechanism for more accurate counseling of patients regarding issues such as newborn skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Bianco and colleagues. At their institution, parents with COVID-19 are instructed to wear a mask and practice proper hand hygiene when caring for their newborns.
Kristina Adams Waldorf, MD, said in an interview that the study by Bianco et al. underscores the high rate of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 infections detected with universal screening in a hospital at the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic. “Each state and hospital will need to evaluate their own data to determine the value of universal screening for their patient population. In rural parts of America that have yet to see cases, universal screening may not make sense, but these areas are likely to be few and far between. The rest of America will need to quickly get on board with universal screening to protect their labor and delivery staff.”
Testing the partner was a strength of the study. “It is reassuring that when a pregnant woman tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the rate was very, very low (2.4%) that her partner would test positive. However, it was disconcerting that telephone screening for common symptoms associated with COVID-19 was not very helpful in identifying cases,” said Dr. Waldorf, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. She was not involved in the study by Bianco et al.
One study author receives payment from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology for serving as a board examiner, receives payment from UpToDate, and serves as an expert witness in malpractice and products liability cases. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Waldorf said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Bianco A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003985.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Whether to test laboring women for SARS-CoV-2 may hinge on regional prevalence
at the time of admission, research published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology suggests.
In Los Angeles, researchers stopped universal testing after none of the first 80 asymptomatic women had positive results. Researchers in Chicago, on the other hand, found a positive rate of approximately 1.6% among 614 asymptomatic patients and continue to test all patients.
“Decisions regarding universal testing need to be made in the context of regional prevalence of COVID-19 infection, with recognition that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be justifiable,” Torri D. Metz, MD,of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City said in an editorial accompanying research letters that described the experience in Los Angeles and Chicago. “In the setting of low population prevalence of COVID-19 infection or in locations with limited testing availability, deferring universal testing may represent the better part of valor when weighing risks, benefits, economic burden, and unintended consequences of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In high-prevalence regions, universal testing may be a valuable addition to obstetric care that will prevent infections in health care workers and neonates.”
Testing all patients also may provide valuable population-level surveillance, added Dr. Metz, who is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist, and vice-chair of research in obstetrics and gynecology.
One week of data
After New York hospitals reported an approximately 13% prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic laboring women, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles changed its policy from testing only women with COVID-19 symptoms to testing all women beginning April 4, 2020. “Data from New York made us very concerned about the possibility of asymptomatic infections among our own pregnant patients,” Mariam Naqvi, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in a news release. “This would have implications for them, their babies, their households, and for the health of our staff caring for them.”
In 1 week, 82 pregnant women admitted to the obstetric unit were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of two women who reported COVID-19 symptoms, one tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Of the remaining 80 asymptomatic women, none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and all remained symptom free throughout their hospitalizations,” Dr. Naqvi and colleagues reported. “One asymptomatic patient had an inadequate nasopharyngeal specimen and declined repeat testing.”
Precautions taken during universal testing meant that all members of the treatment team used valuable personal protective equipment. In some cases, mothers and newborns were separated until test results were available.
“We discontinued universal testing after a 7-day period, because we could not justify continued testing of asymptomatic women in the absence of positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” they noted. “Though universal testing did not yield enough positive results on our obstetric unit to warrant continued testing at this time, our approach may change if local rates of infection increase.”
20 days of testing
In a prospective case series of pregnant women admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago from April 8 to April 27, 2020, universal testing did detect asymptomatic infections. Women with scheduled admissions were tested 12-36 hours before admission in a drive-through testing center, and women with unscheduled admissions received a test that has a 2- to 3-hour turnaround time. In addition, patients were screened for symptoms such as fever, shortness of breath, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills, new-onset vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and red or painful eyes.
“Asymptomatic women with pending tests were managed on the routine labor floor, but health care workers used personal protective equipment that included a respirator during the second stage of labor and delivery until the test result became available,” wrote Emily S. Miller, MD, MPH, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.
During the first 20 days of universal testing, 635 pregnant women were admitted, and 23 (3.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 21 women with COVID-19 symptoms, 13 (62%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 614 women who were asymptomatic, 10 (1.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Our data corroborate the observation that pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection on admission do not seem to be reliably identified using symptom screening alone,” the researchers wrote.
Unintended consequences
Despite a lack of effective treatments for mild to moderate COVID-19, “knowledge of the disease state allows ... health care workers to wear appropriate personal protective equipment to avoid exposure,” Dr. Metz wrote. It also allows “women to be counseled about ways to decrease transmission to neonates” and enables close monitoring of patients with infection.
At the same time, universal testing may have unintended consequences for infected patients, such as stigmatization, separation from the newborn, and delays in care related to health care providers spending more time donning personal protective equipment or changes in medical decision-making regarding cesarean delivery, she emphasized.
“Obstetricians should remain aware of disease prevalence in their communities and consider universal screening of asymptomatic women on an ongoing basis as new ‘hot spots’ for COVID-19 infection are identified,” Dr. Metz concluded.
One of Dr. Naqvi’s coauthors disclosed receiving funds from Contemporary OB/GYN, Keneka, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and serving as a board examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology; her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metz disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Pfizer and GestVision for work related to an RSV vaccination trial and a preeclampsia test, respectively. Dr. Miller and colleagues did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Naqvi M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003987; Miller ES et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003983; Metz TD. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003972.
at the time of admission, research published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology suggests.
In Los Angeles, researchers stopped universal testing after none of the first 80 asymptomatic women had positive results. Researchers in Chicago, on the other hand, found a positive rate of approximately 1.6% among 614 asymptomatic patients and continue to test all patients.
“Decisions regarding universal testing need to be made in the context of regional prevalence of COVID-19 infection, with recognition that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be justifiable,” Torri D. Metz, MD,of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City said in an editorial accompanying research letters that described the experience in Los Angeles and Chicago. “In the setting of low population prevalence of COVID-19 infection or in locations with limited testing availability, deferring universal testing may represent the better part of valor when weighing risks, benefits, economic burden, and unintended consequences of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In high-prevalence regions, universal testing may be a valuable addition to obstetric care that will prevent infections in health care workers and neonates.”
Testing all patients also may provide valuable population-level surveillance, added Dr. Metz, who is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist, and vice-chair of research in obstetrics and gynecology.
One week of data
After New York hospitals reported an approximately 13% prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic laboring women, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles changed its policy from testing only women with COVID-19 symptoms to testing all women beginning April 4, 2020. “Data from New York made us very concerned about the possibility of asymptomatic infections among our own pregnant patients,” Mariam Naqvi, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in a news release. “This would have implications for them, their babies, their households, and for the health of our staff caring for them.”
In 1 week, 82 pregnant women admitted to the obstetric unit were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of two women who reported COVID-19 symptoms, one tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Of the remaining 80 asymptomatic women, none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and all remained symptom free throughout their hospitalizations,” Dr. Naqvi and colleagues reported. “One asymptomatic patient had an inadequate nasopharyngeal specimen and declined repeat testing.”
Precautions taken during universal testing meant that all members of the treatment team used valuable personal protective equipment. In some cases, mothers and newborns were separated until test results were available.
“We discontinued universal testing after a 7-day period, because we could not justify continued testing of asymptomatic women in the absence of positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” they noted. “Though universal testing did not yield enough positive results on our obstetric unit to warrant continued testing at this time, our approach may change if local rates of infection increase.”
20 days of testing
In a prospective case series of pregnant women admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago from April 8 to April 27, 2020, universal testing did detect asymptomatic infections. Women with scheduled admissions were tested 12-36 hours before admission in a drive-through testing center, and women with unscheduled admissions received a test that has a 2- to 3-hour turnaround time. In addition, patients were screened for symptoms such as fever, shortness of breath, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills, new-onset vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and red or painful eyes.
“Asymptomatic women with pending tests were managed on the routine labor floor, but health care workers used personal protective equipment that included a respirator during the second stage of labor and delivery until the test result became available,” wrote Emily S. Miller, MD, MPH, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.
During the first 20 days of universal testing, 635 pregnant women were admitted, and 23 (3.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 21 women with COVID-19 symptoms, 13 (62%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 614 women who were asymptomatic, 10 (1.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Our data corroborate the observation that pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection on admission do not seem to be reliably identified using symptom screening alone,” the researchers wrote.
Unintended consequences
Despite a lack of effective treatments for mild to moderate COVID-19, “knowledge of the disease state allows ... health care workers to wear appropriate personal protective equipment to avoid exposure,” Dr. Metz wrote. It also allows “women to be counseled about ways to decrease transmission to neonates” and enables close monitoring of patients with infection.
At the same time, universal testing may have unintended consequences for infected patients, such as stigmatization, separation from the newborn, and delays in care related to health care providers spending more time donning personal protective equipment or changes in medical decision-making regarding cesarean delivery, she emphasized.
“Obstetricians should remain aware of disease prevalence in their communities and consider universal screening of asymptomatic women on an ongoing basis as new ‘hot spots’ for COVID-19 infection are identified,” Dr. Metz concluded.
One of Dr. Naqvi’s coauthors disclosed receiving funds from Contemporary OB/GYN, Keneka, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and serving as a board examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology; her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metz disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Pfizer and GestVision for work related to an RSV vaccination trial and a preeclampsia test, respectively. Dr. Miller and colleagues did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Naqvi M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003987; Miller ES et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003983; Metz TD. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003972.
at the time of admission, research published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology suggests.
In Los Angeles, researchers stopped universal testing after none of the first 80 asymptomatic women had positive results. Researchers in Chicago, on the other hand, found a positive rate of approximately 1.6% among 614 asymptomatic patients and continue to test all patients.
“Decisions regarding universal testing need to be made in the context of regional prevalence of COVID-19 infection, with recognition that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be justifiable,” Torri D. Metz, MD,of University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City said in an editorial accompanying research letters that described the experience in Los Angeles and Chicago. “In the setting of low population prevalence of COVID-19 infection or in locations with limited testing availability, deferring universal testing may represent the better part of valor when weighing risks, benefits, economic burden, and unintended consequences of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In high-prevalence regions, universal testing may be a valuable addition to obstetric care that will prevent infections in health care workers and neonates.”
Testing all patients also may provide valuable population-level surveillance, added Dr. Metz, who is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist, and vice-chair of research in obstetrics and gynecology.
One week of data
After New York hospitals reported an approximately 13% prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic laboring women, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles changed its policy from testing only women with COVID-19 symptoms to testing all women beginning April 4, 2020. “Data from New York made us very concerned about the possibility of asymptomatic infections among our own pregnant patients,” Mariam Naqvi, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in a news release. “This would have implications for them, their babies, their households, and for the health of our staff caring for them.”
In 1 week, 82 pregnant women admitted to the obstetric unit were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of two women who reported COVID-19 symptoms, one tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Of the remaining 80 asymptomatic women, none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and all remained symptom free throughout their hospitalizations,” Dr. Naqvi and colleagues reported. “One asymptomatic patient had an inadequate nasopharyngeal specimen and declined repeat testing.”
Precautions taken during universal testing meant that all members of the treatment team used valuable personal protective equipment. In some cases, mothers and newborns were separated until test results were available.
“We discontinued universal testing after a 7-day period, because we could not justify continued testing of asymptomatic women in the absence of positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” they noted. “Though universal testing did not yield enough positive results on our obstetric unit to warrant continued testing at this time, our approach may change if local rates of infection increase.”
20 days of testing
In a prospective case series of pregnant women admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago from April 8 to April 27, 2020, universal testing did detect asymptomatic infections. Women with scheduled admissions were tested 12-36 hours before admission in a drive-through testing center, and women with unscheduled admissions received a test that has a 2- to 3-hour turnaround time. In addition, patients were screened for symptoms such as fever, shortness of breath, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills, new-onset vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and red or painful eyes.
“Asymptomatic women with pending tests were managed on the routine labor floor, but health care workers used personal protective equipment that included a respirator during the second stage of labor and delivery until the test result became available,” wrote Emily S. Miller, MD, MPH, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues.
During the first 20 days of universal testing, 635 pregnant women were admitted, and 23 (3.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 21 women with COVID-19 symptoms, 13 (62%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 614 women who were asymptomatic, 10 (1.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. “Our data corroborate the observation that pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection on admission do not seem to be reliably identified using symptom screening alone,” the researchers wrote.
Unintended consequences
Despite a lack of effective treatments for mild to moderate COVID-19, “knowledge of the disease state allows ... health care workers to wear appropriate personal protective equipment to avoid exposure,” Dr. Metz wrote. It also allows “women to be counseled about ways to decrease transmission to neonates” and enables close monitoring of patients with infection.
At the same time, universal testing may have unintended consequences for infected patients, such as stigmatization, separation from the newborn, and delays in care related to health care providers spending more time donning personal protective equipment or changes in medical decision-making regarding cesarean delivery, she emphasized.
“Obstetricians should remain aware of disease prevalence in their communities and consider universal screening of asymptomatic women on an ongoing basis as new ‘hot spots’ for COVID-19 infection are identified,” Dr. Metz concluded.
One of Dr. Naqvi’s coauthors disclosed receiving funds from Contemporary OB/GYN, Keneka, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and serving as a board examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology; her coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metz disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Pfizer and GestVision for work related to an RSV vaccination trial and a preeclampsia test, respectively. Dr. Miller and colleagues did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Naqvi M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003987; Miller ES et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003983; Metz TD. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003972.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Should all patients with advanced ovarian cancer receive frontline maintenance therapy?
The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.
Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?
In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.
PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.
In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.
Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.
The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.4 PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.5
When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.
The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.
2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.
3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.
4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.
5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.
The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.
Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?
In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.
PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.
In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.
Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.
The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.4 PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.5
When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.
The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.
2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.
3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.
4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.
5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.
The current standard frontline therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer includes a combination of surgical cytoreduction and at least six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. While this achieves a complete clinical response (“remission”) in most, 85% of patients will recur and eventually succumb to the disease. This suggests that treatments are good at inducing remission, but poor at eradicating the disease altogether. This has motivated the consideration of maintenance therapy: extended treatment beyond completion of chemotherapy during the period of time when patients are clinically disease free.
Maintenance therapy is an appealing concept for clinicians who desperately want to “hold” their patients in a disease-free state for longer periods. It is also a profitable way to administer therapy as there is more compensation to the pharmaceutical industry from chronic, long-term drug administration rather than episodic treatment courses. However, the following question must be asked: Is this extended therapy worthwhile for all patients, and is it good value?
In the past 12 months, three major industry-sponsored clinical trials have been published (PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA)which suggest a benefit for all patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in receiving prolonged poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy after primary chemotherapy.1-3 This has resulted in Food and Drug Administration approval for some of these agents as maintenance therapy. Despite differences in the drugs tested and the timing of therapy, these studies observed that treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with the addition of a PARPi during and/or after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for up to an additional 3 years resulted in a longer progression-free survival (PFS) of approximately 6 months. PFS is defined as the time to measurable recurrence or death. However, this positive effect was not equally distributed across the whole population; rather, it appeared to be created by a substantial response in a smaller subgroup.
PARP inhibitor therapies such as olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and rucaparib target a family of enzymes that repair DNA and stabilize the human genome through the repair of single-stranded DNA breaks. Inhibiting these enzymes facilitates the accumulation of single-stranded breaks, allowing the development of double-strand breaks, which in turn cannot be repaired if the cell has deficient homologous recombination (HRD) such as through a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, or alternative relevant mutation that confers a similar effect. The opportunistic pairing of a drug interaction with a pathway specific to the cancer is an example of a targeted therapy.
In order to improve the value of cancer drug therapy, there has been emphasis by cooperative research groups, such as the Gynecologic Oncology Group, to study the efficacy of targeted therapies, such as PARPi, in patients identified by biomarkers such as tumors that possess germline or somatic HRD in whom they are most likely to work. This approach makes good common sense and promises to deliver a large magnitude of clinical benefit in a smaller focused population. Therefore, even if drug costs are high, the treatment may still have value. Consistent with that principle, the recently published VELIA, PRIMA, and PAOLA-1 trials all showed impressive benefit in PFS (on average 11-12 months) for the subgroup of patients with HRD. However, these studies were designed and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and abandoned the principle of biomarker-driven targeted therapy. They did not limit their studies to the HRD-positive population most likely to benefit, but instead included and reported on the impact on all-comers (patients with both HRD and HR-proficient tumors). Subsequently their final conclusions could be extrapolated to the general population of ovarian cancer patients, and in doing so, a larger share of the marketplace.
Only 30% of the general population of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer patients carry a germline or somatic BRCA mutation and less than half carry this or alternative mutations which confer HRD. The remaining majority are HR-proficient tumors. However, the three study populations in the aforementioned trials were enriched for HRD tumors with 50%-60% subjects carrying germline or somatic HRD. Therefore, it is likely that the observed benefits in the “intent-to-treat” group were larger than what a clinician would observe in their patient population. Additionally, the large (11-12 month) gains in the HRD-positive group may have been so significant that they compensated for the subtle impact in the HR-proficient population (less than 3 months), resulting in an average total effect that, while being statistically significant for “all comers,” was actually only clinically significant for the HRD group. The positive impact for HRD tumors effectively boosted the results for the group as a whole.
The use of PFS as a primary endpoint raises another significant concern with the design of these PARPi maintenance trials. Much has been written about the importance of PFS as an endpoint for ovarian cancer because of confounding effects of subsequent therapy and to minimize the costs and duration of clinical trials.4 PFS is a quicker, less expensive endpoint to capture than overall survival. It usually correlates with overall survival, but typically only when there is a large magnitude of benefit in PFS. These arguments are fair when considering episodic drug therapies in the setting of measurable, active disease. However, maintenance therapy is given during a period of what patients think of as remission. Remission is valued by patients because it is a gateway to cure, and also because it is a time devoid of symptoms of disease, toxicity (therapeutic and financial), and the burden of frequent medical visits and interventions. While PFS is a measure of the length of remission, it is not a measure of cure. We should ask: What does it mean to a patient if she has a longer remission but needs to be on drug therapy (with its associated burdens and toxicities) in order to maintain that remission? We know that an increase in PFS with maintenance therapy does not always result in a commensurate increase in survival. One does not always precede the other. An example of this is the use of maintenance bevacizumab following upfront chemotherapy which improves PFS by 4 months, but is not associated with an increase in survival.5
When considering the value and ethics of maintenance therapy, it should be associated with a proven survival benefit or an improvement in quality of life. With respect to PARPi maintenance, we lack the data regarding the former, and have contrary evidence regarding the latter. In these three trials, PARPi maintenance was associated with significantly more toxicity than placebo including the commonly observed nausea and fatigue. Most of us would not like to be on a drug therapy for 3 years that made us feel nauseated or fatigued if it didn’t also increase our chance of cure or a longer life. While the significant PFS benefit of maintenance PARPi that is consistently observed in HRD-positive ovarian cancers suggests there will also likely be a clinically significant improvement in survival and cure in that specific subpopulation, this is less likely true for the majority of women with HR-proficient ovarian cancers. Time will tell this story, but as yet, we don’t know.
The use of maintenance PARPi therapy during and/or after primary cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer is associated with a substantial benefit in time to recurrence in a population with HRD tumors and a small benefit among the majority who don’t. However, it comes at the cost of toxicity at a time when patients would otherwise be free of disease and treatment. I propose that, until a survival benefit for all women has been observed, we should consider a targeted and biomarker-driven approach to maintenance PARPi prescription, favoring prescription for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. González-Martín A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-402.
2. Ray-Coquard I et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-28.
3. Coleman RL et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-15.
4. Herzog TJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):8-17.
5. Tewari KS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-28.
Hyperkalemia most common adverse event in women taking spironolactone
, according to new research.
Spironolactone, which is approved to treat heart failure, hypertension, edema, and primary hyperaldosteronism, has antagonistic effects on progesterone and androgen receptors and has been used as an off-label treatment for acne in women. “Numerous guidelines have recommended its off-label use for acne therapy to avoid antibiotic resistance and potential side effects,” wrote Yu Wang of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Shari R. Lipner MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Their report is in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
In a retrospective study, the investigators analyzed 7,920 adverse events with spironolactone reported by women of all ages between Jan. 1, 1969, and Dec. 30, 2018, to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, for all indications. The most common adverse event was hyperkalemia, reported in 16.1%, followed by kidney injury (15.2%) and drug interactions (9%). Of the 1,272 cases of hyperkalemia reported, 25 occurred in women aged 45 years or younger; 59.3% occurred in women aged 65-85 years.
While spironolactone prescribing information was not available, the investigators compared yearly reports of adverse events with annual public interest in spironolactone using the Google Trends search term spironolactone and annual scholarly mentions of spironolactone in the Altmetric database. There was a strong correlation between the number of cases reported to the FDA and the Google Trends search (Spearman coefficient, 0.94; P less than .001) and to the Altmetric database (Spearman coefficient, 0.64; P less than .01).
Noting that hyperkalemia is “exceptionally uncommon” in women aged 45 years and younger, the investigators concluded that “in the absence of risk factors for hyperkalemia or reduced renal function, potassium laboratory monitoring is unnecessary in younger females taking spironolactone.” Because the incidence increases with age, “interval laboratory monitoring is recommended for females older than 45 years old,” they noted.
Limitations of the study, they noted, include the retrospective design and no available data before 1969. “In addition, since the [FDA Adverse Event Reporting System] data does not differentiate whether spironolactone was prescribed for heart failure, hypertension, edema, primary hyperaldosteronism, or for acne,” the study could not control for these or other confounding comorbidities or associated therapies.
“For future studies, it is important to analyze drug interactions more carefully to determine which other medications may potentiate the risk for hyperkalemia in patients taking spironolactone. It is also important to quantitate overall U.S. prescription data to better understand the relative frequency of these adverse effects reported to the FDA,” they wrote.
The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest; the study had no funding.
SOURCE: Wang Y, Lipner SR. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.002.
, according to new research.
Spironolactone, which is approved to treat heart failure, hypertension, edema, and primary hyperaldosteronism, has antagonistic effects on progesterone and androgen receptors and has been used as an off-label treatment for acne in women. “Numerous guidelines have recommended its off-label use for acne therapy to avoid antibiotic resistance and potential side effects,” wrote Yu Wang of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Shari R. Lipner MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Their report is in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
In a retrospective study, the investigators analyzed 7,920 adverse events with spironolactone reported by women of all ages between Jan. 1, 1969, and Dec. 30, 2018, to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, for all indications. The most common adverse event was hyperkalemia, reported in 16.1%, followed by kidney injury (15.2%) and drug interactions (9%). Of the 1,272 cases of hyperkalemia reported, 25 occurred in women aged 45 years or younger; 59.3% occurred in women aged 65-85 years.
While spironolactone prescribing information was not available, the investigators compared yearly reports of adverse events with annual public interest in spironolactone using the Google Trends search term spironolactone and annual scholarly mentions of spironolactone in the Altmetric database. There was a strong correlation between the number of cases reported to the FDA and the Google Trends search (Spearman coefficient, 0.94; P less than .001) and to the Altmetric database (Spearman coefficient, 0.64; P less than .01).
Noting that hyperkalemia is “exceptionally uncommon” in women aged 45 years and younger, the investigators concluded that “in the absence of risk factors for hyperkalemia or reduced renal function, potassium laboratory monitoring is unnecessary in younger females taking spironolactone.” Because the incidence increases with age, “interval laboratory monitoring is recommended for females older than 45 years old,” they noted.
Limitations of the study, they noted, include the retrospective design and no available data before 1969. “In addition, since the [FDA Adverse Event Reporting System] data does not differentiate whether spironolactone was prescribed for heart failure, hypertension, edema, primary hyperaldosteronism, or for acne,” the study could not control for these or other confounding comorbidities or associated therapies.
“For future studies, it is important to analyze drug interactions more carefully to determine which other medications may potentiate the risk for hyperkalemia in patients taking spironolactone. It is also important to quantitate overall U.S. prescription data to better understand the relative frequency of these adverse effects reported to the FDA,” they wrote.
The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest; the study had no funding.
SOURCE: Wang Y, Lipner SR. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.002.
, according to new research.
Spironolactone, which is approved to treat heart failure, hypertension, edema, and primary hyperaldosteronism, has antagonistic effects on progesterone and androgen receptors and has been used as an off-label treatment for acne in women. “Numerous guidelines have recommended its off-label use for acne therapy to avoid antibiotic resistance and potential side effects,” wrote Yu Wang of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Shari R. Lipner MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Their report is in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
In a retrospective study, the investigators analyzed 7,920 adverse events with spironolactone reported by women of all ages between Jan. 1, 1969, and Dec. 30, 2018, to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, for all indications. The most common adverse event was hyperkalemia, reported in 16.1%, followed by kidney injury (15.2%) and drug interactions (9%). Of the 1,272 cases of hyperkalemia reported, 25 occurred in women aged 45 years or younger; 59.3% occurred in women aged 65-85 years.
While spironolactone prescribing information was not available, the investigators compared yearly reports of adverse events with annual public interest in spironolactone using the Google Trends search term spironolactone and annual scholarly mentions of spironolactone in the Altmetric database. There was a strong correlation between the number of cases reported to the FDA and the Google Trends search (Spearman coefficient, 0.94; P less than .001) and to the Altmetric database (Spearman coefficient, 0.64; P less than .01).
Noting that hyperkalemia is “exceptionally uncommon” in women aged 45 years and younger, the investigators concluded that “in the absence of risk factors for hyperkalemia or reduced renal function, potassium laboratory monitoring is unnecessary in younger females taking spironolactone.” Because the incidence increases with age, “interval laboratory monitoring is recommended for females older than 45 years old,” they noted.
Limitations of the study, they noted, include the retrospective design and no available data before 1969. “In addition, since the [FDA Adverse Event Reporting System] data does not differentiate whether spironolactone was prescribed for heart failure, hypertension, edema, primary hyperaldosteronism, or for acne,” the study could not control for these or other confounding comorbidities or associated therapies.
“For future studies, it is important to analyze drug interactions more carefully to determine which other medications may potentiate the risk for hyperkalemia in patients taking spironolactone. It is also important to quantitate overall U.S. prescription data to better understand the relative frequency of these adverse effects reported to the FDA,” they wrote.
The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest; the study had no funding.
SOURCE: Wang Y, Lipner SR. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.002.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S DERMATOLOGY
Seek safe strategies to diagnose gestational diabetes during pandemic
Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.
National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.
“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.
Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.
“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.
Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.
Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).
Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.
The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.
“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.
Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”
Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.
“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.
A major concern against the backdrop of COVID-19 is ensuring long-term health while urgent care is – understandably so – being prioritized over preventive care. We can already see the impact that the decrease in primary care has had: Rates of childhood vaccination appear to have dropped; the cancellation or indefinite delay of elective medical procedures has meant a reduction in preventive cancer screenings, such as colonoscopies and mammograms; and concerns about COVID-19 may be keeping those experiencing cardiac events from seeking emergency care.
However, an outcropping of the coronavirus pandemic is an ingenuity to adapt to our new “normal.” Medical licenses have been recognized across state lines to allow much-needed professionals to practice in the hardest-hit areas. Doctors retrofitted a sleep apnea machine to be used as a makeshift ventilator. Those in the wearable device market now have a greater onus to deliver on quality, utility, security, and accuracy.
Obstetricians have had to dramatically change delivery of ante-, intra- and postpartum care. The recent commentary by Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses focuses on one particular area of concern: screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
Screening and diagnosis are mainstays to reduce the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes of diabetes in pregnancy. Although there is no universally accepted approach to evaluating GDM, all current methods utilize an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which requires significant time spent in a clinical office setting, thus increasing risk for COVID-19 exposure.
Several countries have adopted modified GDM criteria within the last months. At the time of this writing, the United States has not. Although not testing women for GDM, which is what Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses point out may be happening in countries with modified guidelines, seems questionable, perhaps we should think differently about our approach.
More than 20 years ago, it was reported that jelly beans could be used as an alternative to the 50-g GDM screening test (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181[5 Pt 1]:1154‐7; Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;173[6]:1889‐92); more recently, candy twists were used with similar results (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;212[4]:522.e1-5). In addition, a number of articles have reported on the utility of capillary whole blood glucose measurements to screen for GDM in developing and resource-limited countries (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13[5]:586‐91; Acta Diabetol. 2016 Feb;53[1]:91‐7; Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Feb;14[2]:131-4). Therefore, rather than forgo GDM screening, women could self-administer a jelly bean test at home, measure blood sugar with a glucometer, and depending on the results, have an OGTT. Importantly, this would allow ob.gyns. to maintain medical standards while managing patients via telemedicine.
We have evidence that GDM can establish poor health for generations. We know that people with underlying conditions have greater morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. We recognize that accurate screening and diagnosis is the key to prevention and management. Rather than accept a “least worst” scenario, as Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses state, we must find ways to provide the best possible care under the current circumstances.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
A major concern against the backdrop of COVID-19 is ensuring long-term health while urgent care is – understandably so – being prioritized over preventive care. We can already see the impact that the decrease in primary care has had: Rates of childhood vaccination appear to have dropped; the cancellation or indefinite delay of elective medical procedures has meant a reduction in preventive cancer screenings, such as colonoscopies and mammograms; and concerns about COVID-19 may be keeping those experiencing cardiac events from seeking emergency care.
However, an outcropping of the coronavirus pandemic is an ingenuity to adapt to our new “normal.” Medical licenses have been recognized across state lines to allow much-needed professionals to practice in the hardest-hit areas. Doctors retrofitted a sleep apnea machine to be used as a makeshift ventilator. Those in the wearable device market now have a greater onus to deliver on quality, utility, security, and accuracy.
Obstetricians have had to dramatically change delivery of ante-, intra- and postpartum care. The recent commentary by Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses focuses on one particular area of concern: screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
Screening and diagnosis are mainstays to reduce the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes of diabetes in pregnancy. Although there is no universally accepted approach to evaluating GDM, all current methods utilize an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which requires significant time spent in a clinical office setting, thus increasing risk for COVID-19 exposure.
Several countries have adopted modified GDM criteria within the last months. At the time of this writing, the United States has not. Although not testing women for GDM, which is what Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses point out may be happening in countries with modified guidelines, seems questionable, perhaps we should think differently about our approach.
More than 20 years ago, it was reported that jelly beans could be used as an alternative to the 50-g GDM screening test (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181[5 Pt 1]:1154‐7; Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;173[6]:1889‐92); more recently, candy twists were used with similar results (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;212[4]:522.e1-5). In addition, a number of articles have reported on the utility of capillary whole blood glucose measurements to screen for GDM in developing and resource-limited countries (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13[5]:586‐91; Acta Diabetol. 2016 Feb;53[1]:91‐7; Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Feb;14[2]:131-4). Therefore, rather than forgo GDM screening, women could self-administer a jelly bean test at home, measure blood sugar with a glucometer, and depending on the results, have an OGTT. Importantly, this would allow ob.gyns. to maintain medical standards while managing patients via telemedicine.
We have evidence that GDM can establish poor health for generations. We know that people with underlying conditions have greater morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. We recognize that accurate screening and diagnosis is the key to prevention and management. Rather than accept a “least worst” scenario, as Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses state, we must find ways to provide the best possible care under the current circumstances.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
A major concern against the backdrop of COVID-19 is ensuring long-term health while urgent care is – understandably so – being prioritized over preventive care. We can already see the impact that the decrease in primary care has had: Rates of childhood vaccination appear to have dropped; the cancellation or indefinite delay of elective medical procedures has meant a reduction in preventive cancer screenings, such as colonoscopies and mammograms; and concerns about COVID-19 may be keeping those experiencing cardiac events from seeking emergency care.
However, an outcropping of the coronavirus pandemic is an ingenuity to adapt to our new “normal.” Medical licenses have been recognized across state lines to allow much-needed professionals to practice in the hardest-hit areas. Doctors retrofitted a sleep apnea machine to be used as a makeshift ventilator. Those in the wearable device market now have a greater onus to deliver on quality, utility, security, and accuracy.
Obstetricians have had to dramatically change delivery of ante-, intra- and postpartum care. The recent commentary by Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses focuses on one particular area of concern: screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
Screening and diagnosis are mainstays to reduce the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes of diabetes in pregnancy. Although there is no universally accepted approach to evaluating GDM, all current methods utilize an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which requires significant time spent in a clinical office setting, thus increasing risk for COVID-19 exposure.
Several countries have adopted modified GDM criteria within the last months. At the time of this writing, the United States has not. Although not testing women for GDM, which is what Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses point out may be happening in countries with modified guidelines, seems questionable, perhaps we should think differently about our approach.
More than 20 years ago, it was reported that jelly beans could be used as an alternative to the 50-g GDM screening test (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181[5 Pt 1]:1154‐7; Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;173[6]:1889‐92); more recently, candy twists were used with similar results (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;212[4]:522.e1-5). In addition, a number of articles have reported on the utility of capillary whole blood glucose measurements to screen for GDM in developing and resource-limited countries (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13[5]:586‐91; Acta Diabetol. 2016 Feb;53[1]:91‐7; Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Feb;14[2]:131-4). Therefore, rather than forgo GDM screening, women could self-administer a jelly bean test at home, measure blood sugar with a glucometer, and depending on the results, have an OGTT. Importantly, this would allow ob.gyns. to maintain medical standards while managing patients via telemedicine.
We have evidence that GDM can establish poor health for generations. We know that people with underlying conditions have greater morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. We recognize that accurate screening and diagnosis is the key to prevention and management. Rather than accept a “least worst” scenario, as Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses state, we must find ways to provide the best possible care under the current circumstances.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.
National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.
“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.
Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.
“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.
Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.
Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).
Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.
The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.
“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.
Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”
Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.
“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.
Clinicians and pregnant women are less likely to prescribe and undergo the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a review by H. David McIntyre, MD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Robert G. Moses, MD, of Wollongong (Australia) Hospital.
National and international discussions of whether a one- or two-step test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is optimal, and which women should be tested are ongoing, but the potential for exposure risks to COVID-19 are impacting the test process, they wrote in a commentary published in Diabetes Care.
“Any national or local guidelines should be developed with the primary aim of being protective for pregnant women and workable in the current health crisis,” they wrote.
Key concerns expressed by women and health care providers include the need for travel to be tested, the possible need for two visits, and the several hours spent in a potentially high-risk specimen collection center.
“Further, a GDM diagnosis generally involves additional health service visits for diabetes education, glucose monitoring review, and fetal ultrasonography, all of which carry exposure risks during a pandemic,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses noted.
Professional societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have issued guidance to clinicians for modifying GDM diagnoses criteria during the pandemic that aim to reduce the need for the oral glucose tolerance test both during and after pregnancy.
Pandemic guidelines for all three of these countries support the identification of GDM using early pregnancy hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of at least 41 mmol/mol (5.9%).
Then, professionals in the United Kingdom recommend testing based on risk factors and diagnosing GDM based on any of these criteria: HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%), fasting venous plasma glucose of at least 5.6 mmol/L (preferred), or random VPG of at least 9.0 mmol/L.
The revised testing pathway for Canada accepts an HbA1c of at least 39 mmol/mol (5.7%) and/or random VPG of at least 11.1 mmol/L.
“The revised Australian pathway does not include HbA1c but recommends a fasting VPG with progression to OGTT only if this result is 4.7-5.0 mmol/L,” Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Moses explained.
Overall, the revised guidelines for GDM testing will likely miss some women and only identify those with higher levels of hyperglycemia, the authors wrote. In addition, “the evidence base for these revised pathways is limited and that each alternative strategy should be evaluated over the course of the current pandemic.”
Validation of new testing strategies are needed, and the pandemic may provide and opportunity to adopt an alternative to the OGTT. The World Health Organization has not issued revised guidance for other methods of testing, but fasting VPG alone may be the simplest and most cost effective, at least for the short term, they noted.
“In this ‘new COVID world,’ GDM should not be ignored but pragmatically merits a lower priority than the avoidance of exposure to the COVID-19 virus,” although no single alternative strategy applies in all countries and situations, the authors concluded. Pragmatic measures and documentation of outcomes at the local level will offer the “least worst” solution while the pandemic continues.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McIntyre HD, Moses RG. Diabetes Care. 2020 May. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0026.