Women's Health

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

[email protected]


 

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

[email protected]


 

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

[email protected]


 

A nationwide cohort study found an association between a woman’s use of hormonal contraceptives and a small increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in her offspring.

copyright Thinkstock

Maternal use of hormonal contraception either during pregnancy or in the 3 months beforehand was associated with a 46% higher risk of any leukemia in the children (P = .011), compared with no use, Marie Hargreave, PhD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center and her coauthors reported in Lancet Oncology.

The study of 1,185,157 children born between 1996 and 2014 included data from the Danish Cancer Registry and Danish National Prescription Registry and followed children for a median of 9.3 years.

Use during pregnancy was associated with a 78% higher risk of any leukemia in the offspring (P = .070), and contraception use that stopped more than 3 months before pregnancy was associated with a 25% higher risk of any leukemia (P = .039).

The researchers estimated that maternal use of hormonal contraceptives up to and including during pregnancy would have resulted in about one additional case of leukemia per 47,170 children; in other words, 25 additional cases of leukemia in Denmark from contraceptive use from 1996 to 2014.

The increased risk appeared to be limited to nonlymphoid leukemia only. The risk with recent use was more than twofold higher (HR, 2.17), compared with nonuse, and use during pregnancy was associated with a nearly fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia (HR, 3.87).

“Sex hormones are considered to be potent carcinogens, and the causal association between in-utero exposure to the oestrogen analogue diethylstilbestrol and subsequent risk for adenocarcinoma of the vagina is firmly established,” Dr. Hargreave and her colleagues wrote. “The mechanism by which maternal use of hormones increases cancer risk in children is, however, still not clear.”

Recent use of combined oral contraceptive products was associated with a more than twofold increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in offspring, compared with no use. However progestin-only oral contraceptives and emergency contraception did not appear to increase in the risk of lymphoid or nonlymphoid leukemia.

The association was strongest in children aged 6-10 years, which the authors suggested was likely because the incidence of nonlymphoid leukemia increases after the age of 6 years.

While acknowledging that the small increase in leukemia risk was not a major safety concern for hormonal contraceptives, the authors commented that the results suggested the intrauterine hormonal environment could be a direction for research into the causes of leukemia.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation and other foundations. One author reported grants from the sponsoring foundations and another author reported speaking fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Shire Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Hargreave M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30479-0.
 

A nationwide cohort study found an association between a woman’s use of hormonal contraceptives and a small increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in her offspring.

copyright Thinkstock

Maternal use of hormonal contraception either during pregnancy or in the 3 months beforehand was associated with a 46% higher risk of any leukemia in the children (P = .011), compared with no use, Marie Hargreave, PhD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center and her coauthors reported in Lancet Oncology.

The study of 1,185,157 children born between 1996 and 2014 included data from the Danish Cancer Registry and Danish National Prescription Registry and followed children for a median of 9.3 years.

Use during pregnancy was associated with a 78% higher risk of any leukemia in the offspring (P = .070), and contraception use that stopped more than 3 months before pregnancy was associated with a 25% higher risk of any leukemia (P = .039).

The researchers estimated that maternal use of hormonal contraceptives up to and including during pregnancy would have resulted in about one additional case of leukemia per 47,170 children; in other words, 25 additional cases of leukemia in Denmark from contraceptive use from 1996 to 2014.

The increased risk appeared to be limited to nonlymphoid leukemia only. The risk with recent use was more than twofold higher (HR, 2.17), compared with nonuse, and use during pregnancy was associated with a nearly fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia (HR, 3.87).

“Sex hormones are considered to be potent carcinogens, and the causal association between in-utero exposure to the oestrogen analogue diethylstilbestrol and subsequent risk for adenocarcinoma of the vagina is firmly established,” Dr. Hargreave and her colleagues wrote. “The mechanism by which maternal use of hormones increases cancer risk in children is, however, still not clear.”

Recent use of combined oral contraceptive products was associated with a more than twofold increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in offspring, compared with no use. However progestin-only oral contraceptives and emergency contraception did not appear to increase in the risk of lymphoid or nonlymphoid leukemia.

The association was strongest in children aged 6-10 years, which the authors suggested was likely because the incidence of nonlymphoid leukemia increases after the age of 6 years.

While acknowledging that the small increase in leukemia risk was not a major safety concern for hormonal contraceptives, the authors commented that the results suggested the intrauterine hormonal environment could be a direction for research into the causes of leukemia.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation and other foundations. One author reported grants from the sponsoring foundations and another author reported speaking fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Shire Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Hargreave M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30479-0.
 

A nationwide cohort study found an association between a woman’s use of hormonal contraceptives and a small increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in her offspring.

copyright Thinkstock

Maternal use of hormonal contraception either during pregnancy or in the 3 months beforehand was associated with a 46% higher risk of any leukemia in the children (P = .011), compared with no use, Marie Hargreave, PhD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center and her coauthors reported in Lancet Oncology.

The study of 1,185,157 children born between 1996 and 2014 included data from the Danish Cancer Registry and Danish National Prescription Registry and followed children for a median of 9.3 years.

Use during pregnancy was associated with a 78% higher risk of any leukemia in the offspring (P = .070), and contraception use that stopped more than 3 months before pregnancy was associated with a 25% higher risk of any leukemia (P = .039).

The researchers estimated that maternal use of hormonal contraceptives up to and including during pregnancy would have resulted in about one additional case of leukemia per 47,170 children; in other words, 25 additional cases of leukemia in Denmark from contraceptive use from 1996 to 2014.

The increased risk appeared to be limited to nonlymphoid leukemia only. The risk with recent use was more than twofold higher (HR, 2.17), compared with nonuse, and use during pregnancy was associated with a nearly fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia (HR, 3.87).

“Sex hormones are considered to be potent carcinogens, and the causal association between in-utero exposure to the oestrogen analogue diethylstilbestrol and subsequent risk for adenocarcinoma of the vagina is firmly established,” Dr. Hargreave and her colleagues wrote. “The mechanism by which maternal use of hormones increases cancer risk in children is, however, still not clear.”

Recent use of combined oral contraceptive products was associated with a more than twofold increased risk of nonlymphoid leukemia in offspring, compared with no use. However progestin-only oral contraceptives and emergency contraception did not appear to increase in the risk of lymphoid or nonlymphoid leukemia.

The association was strongest in children aged 6-10 years, which the authors suggested was likely because the incidence of nonlymphoid leukemia increases after the age of 6 years.

While acknowledging that the small increase in leukemia risk was not a major safety concern for hormonal contraceptives, the authors commented that the results suggested the intrauterine hormonal environment could be a direction for research into the causes of leukemia.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation and other foundations. One author reported grants from the sponsoring foundations and another author reported speaking fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Shire Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Hargreave M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30479-0.
 

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

This article was produced in partnership with The New York Times.

One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

The researcher, José Baselga, MD, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations; has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies; and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by ProPublica and the New York Times, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group’s journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal’s two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech start-ups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”

Dr. Baselga’s extensive corporate relationships – and his frequent failure to disclose them – illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists, and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.

If leaders don’t follow the rules, then we don’t really have rules,” said Walid Gellad, MD, an of the department of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of its Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing. “It says that the rules don’t matter.”

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the American Association for Cancer Research, warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a 3-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the AACR, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga’s omissions after inquiries from the Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga’s responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities such as medical journals. The cancer center, she said, “has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research.”

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.

“I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives,” Dr. Baselga said in the statement. “While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader.”
 

The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation’s top cancer centers and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital’s latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing – after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga’s relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center’s medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Craig B. Thompson, MD, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. “We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world,” she said.
 

Some disclosures are required; others aren’t

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products – projects still in the testing phases – do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, Dr. Baselga received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian’s board of directors, according to the company’s corporate filings.

ProPublica and the Times analyzed Dr. Baselga’s publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60% of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87% of the articles that he wrote or cowrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented “conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work,” and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most “had no clinical nor financial implications.” That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Baselga’s articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his coauthors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company’s drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had “nothing to disclose.” Fourteen of his coauthors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that “these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments.”

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies’ sponsors.

“We don’t routinely check because we don’t have those kind of resources,” said Rita F. Redberg, MD, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. “We rely on trust and integrity. It’s kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship.”

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The AACR said it had begun an “extensive review” of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that “such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules.”

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the ASCO in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin – which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives – to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche’s stock fell 5 % on the news. One analyst described the results as a “lead balloon,” and an editorial in the New England Journal called it a “disappointment.”

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were “weird” and “strange.”

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were “incredibly exciting” while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.

That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga’s current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the ASCO conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga’s disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last 2 years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the FDA for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.
 

Katie Thomas covers the pharmaceutical industry for the New York Times.

Children born from assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection may be at risk of developing arterial hypertension due to premature vascular aging, according to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

In a previous study, Emrush Rexhaj, MD, director of arterial hypertension and altitude medicine at Inselspital, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and his colleagues assessed vascular function in participants who were born with assisted reproductive technology (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); the investigators found vascular dysfunction in this patient population not “related to parental factors but to the ART procedure itself,” they said.

Dr. Rexhaj and his colleagues then reassessed vascular function in 54 participants (mean age 16.5 years old) who returned from the previous study 5 years after the initial assessment and compared the results with 43 matched patients in a control group (mean age, 17.4 years). There were no significant differences regarding body mass index, lipid, creatinine, electrolyte plasma concentrations, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, birth weight, and gestational age between children in either group, as well as no significant differences in maternal BMI, cardiovascular risk profile, and smoking status.

The investigators – with Théo A. Meister, MD, also of the university, as a joint lead author with Dr. Rexhaj – performed blinded endothelium-dependent and endothelium­-independent vasodilation of the brachial artery in a supine position at room temperature and after 15 minutes of rest. They also measured carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), large artery stiffness, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and short-term blood pressure variability.

“It only took five years for differences in arterial blood pressure to show,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in a press release. “This is a rapidly growing population and apparently healthy children are showing serious signs of concern for early cardiovascular risk, especially when it comes to arterial hypertension.”

Specifically, there was an approximately 25% reduction in flow-mediated dilation in the ART group (7%) compared with the control group (9%), which the investigators attributed to endothelial dysfunction (P less than .001). In ART patients, carotid IMT (463 mm) and carotid pulse-wave velocity (7.7 m/s) was significantly increased, compared with carotid IMT (435 mm; P less than .01) and pulse-wave velocity (7.2 m/s; P equals .033) in the control group.

With regard to arterial hypertension, 24-hour systolic blood pressure in the ART group (120 mm Hg) was “markedly” higher than in the control group (116 mm Hg; P equals .02); 24-hour diastolic blood pressure was also significantly higher in the ART group (71 mm Hg) compared with the control group (69 mm Hg; P equals .03). Investigators noted 8 of the 52 patients (15%) in the ART group met clinical criteria for arterial hypertension according to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compared with 1 of the 40 patients (2%) in the control group.

“The increased prevalence of arterial hypertension in ART participants is what is most concerning,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in the release. “There is growing evidence that ART alters the blood vessels in children, but the long-term consequences were not known. We now know that this places ART children at a six times higher rate of hypertension than children conceived naturally.”

The investigators cited as a limitation the fact that they studied only children born from singleton births recruited from a single center, which may have a lower cardiovascular risk profile than other patient populations.

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Placide Nicod Foundation, the Swiss Society of Hypertension, the Swiss Society of Cardiology and Mach-Gaensslen Stiftung (Schweiz). The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Meister TA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.060.

Children born from assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection may be at risk of developing arterial hypertension due to premature vascular aging, according to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

In a previous study, Emrush Rexhaj, MD, director of arterial hypertension and altitude medicine at Inselspital, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and his colleagues assessed vascular function in participants who were born with assisted reproductive technology (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); the investigators found vascular dysfunction in this patient population not “related to parental factors but to the ART procedure itself,” they said.

Dr. Rexhaj and his colleagues then reassessed vascular function in 54 participants (mean age 16.5 years old) who returned from the previous study 5 years after the initial assessment and compared the results with 43 matched patients in a control group (mean age, 17.4 years). There were no significant differences regarding body mass index, lipid, creatinine, electrolyte plasma concentrations, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, birth weight, and gestational age between children in either group, as well as no significant differences in maternal BMI, cardiovascular risk profile, and smoking status.

The investigators – with Théo A. Meister, MD, also of the university, as a joint lead author with Dr. Rexhaj – performed blinded endothelium-dependent and endothelium­-independent vasodilation of the brachial artery in a supine position at room temperature and after 15 minutes of rest. They also measured carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), large artery stiffness, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and short-term blood pressure variability.

“It only took five years for differences in arterial blood pressure to show,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in a press release. “This is a rapidly growing population and apparently healthy children are showing serious signs of concern for early cardiovascular risk, especially when it comes to arterial hypertension.”

Specifically, there was an approximately 25% reduction in flow-mediated dilation in the ART group (7%) compared with the control group (9%), which the investigators attributed to endothelial dysfunction (P less than .001). In ART patients, carotid IMT (463 mm) and carotid pulse-wave velocity (7.7 m/s) was significantly increased, compared with carotid IMT (435 mm; P less than .01) and pulse-wave velocity (7.2 m/s; P equals .033) in the control group.

With regard to arterial hypertension, 24-hour systolic blood pressure in the ART group (120 mm Hg) was “markedly” higher than in the control group (116 mm Hg; P equals .02); 24-hour diastolic blood pressure was also significantly higher in the ART group (71 mm Hg) compared with the control group (69 mm Hg; P equals .03). Investigators noted 8 of the 52 patients (15%) in the ART group met clinical criteria for arterial hypertension according to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compared with 1 of the 40 patients (2%) in the control group.

“The increased prevalence of arterial hypertension in ART participants is what is most concerning,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in the release. “There is growing evidence that ART alters the blood vessels in children, but the long-term consequences were not known. We now know that this places ART children at a six times higher rate of hypertension than children conceived naturally.”

The investigators cited as a limitation the fact that they studied only children born from singleton births recruited from a single center, which may have a lower cardiovascular risk profile than other patient populations.

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Placide Nicod Foundation, the Swiss Society of Hypertension, the Swiss Society of Cardiology and Mach-Gaensslen Stiftung (Schweiz). The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Meister TA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.060.

Children born from assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection may be at risk of developing arterial hypertension due to premature vascular aging, according to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

©ktsimage/iStockphoto.com

In a previous study, Emrush Rexhaj, MD, director of arterial hypertension and altitude medicine at Inselspital, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and his colleagues assessed vascular function in participants who were born with assisted reproductive technology (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); the investigators found vascular dysfunction in this patient population not “related to parental factors but to the ART procedure itself,” they said.

Dr. Rexhaj and his colleagues then reassessed vascular function in 54 participants (mean age 16.5 years old) who returned from the previous study 5 years after the initial assessment and compared the results with 43 matched patients in a control group (mean age, 17.4 years). There were no significant differences regarding body mass index, lipid, creatinine, electrolyte plasma concentrations, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, birth weight, and gestational age between children in either group, as well as no significant differences in maternal BMI, cardiovascular risk profile, and smoking status.

The investigators – with Théo A. Meister, MD, also of the university, as a joint lead author with Dr. Rexhaj – performed blinded endothelium-dependent and endothelium­-independent vasodilation of the brachial artery in a supine position at room temperature and after 15 minutes of rest. They also measured carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), large artery stiffness, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and short-term blood pressure variability.

“It only took five years for differences in arterial blood pressure to show,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in a press release. “This is a rapidly growing population and apparently healthy children are showing serious signs of concern for early cardiovascular risk, especially when it comes to arterial hypertension.”

Specifically, there was an approximately 25% reduction in flow-mediated dilation in the ART group (7%) compared with the control group (9%), which the investigators attributed to endothelial dysfunction (P less than .001). In ART patients, carotid IMT (463 mm) and carotid pulse-wave velocity (7.7 m/s) was significantly increased, compared with carotid IMT (435 mm; P less than .01) and pulse-wave velocity (7.2 m/s; P equals .033) in the control group.

With regard to arterial hypertension, 24-hour systolic blood pressure in the ART group (120 mm Hg) was “markedly” higher than in the control group (116 mm Hg; P equals .02); 24-hour diastolic blood pressure was also significantly higher in the ART group (71 mm Hg) compared with the control group (69 mm Hg; P equals .03). Investigators noted 8 of the 52 patients (15%) in the ART group met clinical criteria for arterial hypertension according to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compared with 1 of the 40 patients (2%) in the control group.

“The increased prevalence of arterial hypertension in ART participants is what is most concerning,” Dr. Rexhaj stated in the release. “There is growing evidence that ART alters the blood vessels in children, but the long-term consequences were not known. We now know that this places ART children at a six times higher rate of hypertension than children conceived naturally.”

The investigators cited as a limitation the fact that they studied only children born from singleton births recruited from a single center, which may have a lower cardiovascular risk profile than other patient populations.

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Placide Nicod Foundation, the Swiss Society of Hypertension, the Swiss Society of Cardiology and Mach-Gaensslen Stiftung (Schweiz). The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Meister TA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.060.

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Here are 4 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Alcohol use during breastfeeding linked to cognitive harms in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vJyUDc
Expires July 30, 2019

2. Cigarette smoking epidemic among HCV-infected individuals

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2B00JwX
Expires June 26, 2019

3. Pancreatic surveillance identified resectable cancers

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vuSKmj
Expires July 30, 2019

4. Autoimmune connective tissue disease predicted by interferon status, family history

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2OkZHNS
Expires July 30, 2019

Here are 4 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Alcohol use during breastfeeding linked to cognitive harms in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vJyUDc
Expires July 30, 2019

2. Cigarette smoking epidemic among HCV-infected individuals

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2B00JwX
Expires June 26, 2019

3. Pancreatic surveillance identified resectable cancers

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vuSKmj
Expires July 30, 2019

4. Autoimmune connective tissue disease predicted by interferon status, family history

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2OkZHNS
Expires July 30, 2019

Here are 4 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Alcohol use during breastfeeding linked to cognitive harms in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vJyUDc
Expires July 30, 2019

2. Cigarette smoking epidemic among HCV-infected individuals

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2B00JwX
Expires June 26, 2019

3. Pancreatic surveillance identified resectable cancers

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2vuSKmj
Expires July 30, 2019

4. Autoimmune connective tissue disease predicted by interferon status, family history

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2OkZHNS
Expires July 30, 2019

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued draft recommendations counseling interventions for women at increased risk for perinatal depression.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

It has given this draft recommendation a B grade, which means that there is moderate certainty of at least moderate net benefit. This is the first time the USPSTF has reviewed this topic.

It’s estimated that one in seven women are affected by perinatal depression, which can have negative effects on both the mothers affected and their children. In its review of evidence, the USPSTF found convincing evidence that counseling, particularly cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal therapies, can prevent perinatal depression.

The draft recommendation affects women who are pregnant or 1 year post partum; specifically, these women will not have a current diagnosis of depression but are at increased risk for it nonetheless. At this time, there is no accurate screening tool available to determine whether women have perinatal depression or are at increased risk. However, certain risk factors have been associated with it, including current stressful life events, personal or family history of depression, history of physical or sexual abuse, pregestational or gestational diabetes, complications during pregnancy such as hyperemesis or premature contractions, adolescent pregnancy, lack of social or financial support, and low socioeconomic status.

The USPSTF reviewed 50 trials considered to be of good or fair quality, with a mean participant age of 29 years; 26 included pregnant women, 22 included women post partum, and 2 included both. Counseling interventions were the most widely studied and “reduced the likelihood of the onset of perinatal depression by 39%” for a pooled risk ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.78), compared with control conditions. Two kinds of therapies stood out as especially effective: cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal. Cognitive-behavioral therapy focuses on negative thoughts, moods, behaviors, and attitudes and seeks to increase positive events and activities. Interpersonal therapy focuses on how interpersonal interactions and patterns can contribute to the development and maintenance of psychological issues and distress.

The comment period for these draft recommendations will continue through Sept. 24 at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/tfcomment.htm.

This article was updated 8/28/18.

[email protected]

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued draft recommendations counseling interventions for women at increased risk for perinatal depression.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

It has given this draft recommendation a B grade, which means that there is moderate certainty of at least moderate net benefit. This is the first time the USPSTF has reviewed this topic.

It’s estimated that one in seven women are affected by perinatal depression, which can have negative effects on both the mothers affected and their children. In its review of evidence, the USPSTF found convincing evidence that counseling, particularly cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal therapies, can prevent perinatal depression.

The draft recommendation affects women who are pregnant or 1 year post partum; specifically, these women will not have a current diagnosis of depression but are at increased risk for it nonetheless. At this time, there is no accurate screening tool available to determine whether women have perinatal depression or are at increased risk. However, certain risk factors have been associated with it, including current stressful life events, personal or family history of depression, history of physical or sexual abuse, pregestational or gestational diabetes, complications during pregnancy such as hyperemesis or premature contractions, adolescent pregnancy, lack of social or financial support, and low socioeconomic status.

The USPSTF reviewed 50 trials considered to be of good or fair quality, with a mean participant age of 29 years; 26 included pregnant women, 22 included women post partum, and 2 included both. Counseling interventions were the most widely studied and “reduced the likelihood of the onset of perinatal depression by 39%” for a pooled risk ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.78), compared with control conditions. Two kinds of therapies stood out as especially effective: cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal. Cognitive-behavioral therapy focuses on negative thoughts, moods, behaviors, and attitudes and seeks to increase positive events and activities. Interpersonal therapy focuses on how interpersonal interactions and patterns can contribute to the development and maintenance of psychological issues and distress.

The comment period for these draft recommendations will continue through Sept. 24 at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/tfcomment.htm.

This article was updated 8/28/18.

[email protected]

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued draft recommendations counseling interventions for women at increased risk for perinatal depression.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

It has given this draft recommendation a B grade, which means that there is moderate certainty of at least moderate net benefit. This is the first time the USPSTF has reviewed this topic.

It’s estimated that one in seven women are affected by perinatal depression, which can have negative effects on both the mothers affected and their children. In its review of evidence, the USPSTF found convincing evidence that counseling, particularly cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal therapies, can prevent perinatal depression.

The draft recommendation affects women who are pregnant or 1 year post partum; specifically, these women will not have a current diagnosis of depression but are at increased risk for it nonetheless. At this time, there is no accurate screening tool available to determine whether women have perinatal depression or are at increased risk. However, certain risk factors have been associated with it, including current stressful life events, personal or family history of depression, history of physical or sexual abuse, pregestational or gestational diabetes, complications during pregnancy such as hyperemesis or premature contractions, adolescent pregnancy, lack of social or financial support, and low socioeconomic status.

The USPSTF reviewed 50 trials considered to be of good or fair quality, with a mean participant age of 29 years; 26 included pregnant women, 22 included women post partum, and 2 included both. Counseling interventions were the most widely studied and “reduced the likelihood of the onset of perinatal depression by 39%” for a pooled risk ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.78), compared with control conditions. Two kinds of therapies stood out as especially effective: cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal. Cognitive-behavioral therapy focuses on negative thoughts, moods, behaviors, and attitudes and seeks to increase positive events and activities. Interpersonal therapy focuses on how interpersonal interactions and patterns can contribute to the development and maintenance of psychological issues and distress.

The comment period for these draft recommendations will continue through Sept. 24 at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/tfcomment.htm.

This article was updated 8/28/18.

[email protected]

Women with RA and juvenile idiopathic arthritis have increased risk for preterm delivery, according to a study examining autoimmune disease in pregnancy. Corticosteroid use in any trimester increased that risk from 100%-400%, regardless of how active the arthritis was.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

The study found that women with RA had more than double the risk for preterm delivery, compared with a cohort without autoimmune disease (relative risk, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.91). For women with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the relative risk was 1.81 for preterm delivery (95% CI, 1.14-2.89).

The prospective cohort study, part of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Disease in Pregnancy Project, enrolled 657 women with RA and 170 women with JIA. The study also included a comparison group of 564 women without autoimmune disease. All of those included in the study were enrolled before 19 weeks’ gestation and delivered live-born infants during 2004-2017.

The study adds to a clinically important area of research that has yielded sometimes conflicting results; clarity has also been impeded by a variety of methodologies. Though several analyses have shown higher risk of preterm delivery in women with RA, not all studies have adjusted for medication use and disease activity, Chelsey F. Smith, MD, and her coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. Further, how women with JIA fare in pregnancy has not been well studied, they said.

Dr. Smith, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues included many baseline covariates in their analysis of pregnancy outcomes; these included maternal age and race, socioeconomic status, body mass index, previous adverse pregnancy outcomes, and comorbidities, including autoimmune disease. Adverse pregnancy outcomes during the studied pregnancy were also included as covariates, and deliveries were considered preterm if labor began before 37 weeks’ gestation.

For women with RA, a higher active disease score at any point during pregnancy was associated with a significantly higher risk of preterm delivery, even after adjustment for other potential risk factors, including first-trimester corticosteroid use (adjusted risk ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.18). The persistence of this association, wrote Dr. Smith and her colleagues, implies “that active disease in RA may contribute to [preterm delivery] independent of medications,” perhaps through the action of proinflammatory cytokines that may stimulate prostaglandins and provoke uterine contractions.

The researchers found, though, that this association between disease activity and risk for preterm birth did not hold true for women with JIA, leaving part of the mystery unsolved.

However, women with both RA and JIA who used corticosteroids in any trimester were more likely to have a preterm delivery, as were women with JIA who used NSAIDs in the first trimester of pregnancy. The use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in any trimester did not confer increased risk for preterm delivery in women with either disease state.

There were other differences between the groups: Women with JIA were overall younger, but had more prepregnancy hypertension, which “may have contributed to the elevated incidence of preeclampsia seen in this group,” the investigators wrote. Fever was more common in women with JIA, and had an independent association with preterm delivery, as did first trimester NSAID use in this group alone.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues hypothesized that the relative heterogeneity of the JIA group may mean that disease activity still influenced outcomes.

Among other comorbidities, gestational diabetes (GDM) was more common in the RA group than in the JIA group or the comparison cohort, and was associated with a significantly higher risk for preterm delivery in women with RA, even after accounting for preeclampsia and hypertension in a multivariate analysis.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues pointed out that it was difficult to account for physician behavior in managing pregnancy in these high-risk women. “Additionally, given that women with both RA and GDM are at a particularly high risk for perinatal complications, we can speculate that the obstetricians in this group were perhaps more aggressive about inducing at an earlier gestational age than in other groups, but this information was not available in the dataset.”

Through phone interviews, investigators obtained information about prescription and nonprescription medication use during pregnancy; women were also asked about use of other substances and occupational exposures, infections, and prenatal testing and other medical procedures. Another telephone interview conducted soon after delivery asked about birth outcomes. Abstracted medical record data were used to verify and supplement the interview information.

When looking at treatments used, Dr. Smith and her colleagues grouped autoimmune disease medications into DMARDs, non-DMARD biologic medications, corticosteroids, and NSAIDs.

Disease activity assessment, conducted at intake and at 32 weeks’ gestation, used the Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain scores, and patient global disease activity to calculate a Patient Activity Scale score ranging from 0 to 10. Patients with a score over 3.7 were classified as having high disease activity.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues said that the study’s strengths included its prospective design and robust statistical schema. Also, using data about corticosteroid use and disease activity earlier in pregnancy avoided the inclusion of a reverse causation effect, where systemic inflammatory changes associated with preterm delivery might provoke more disease activity and a consequent boost in corticosteroid use.

However, the researchers said, the overall numbers of participants with preterm delivery was relatively small, and the JIA cohort was small as well.

“Further analyses are necessary to look at other categories of arthritis affecting women of childbearing age, racial disparities in these populations, as well as the influence of disease activity in the later stages of pregnancy on other perinatal factors” that can contribute to preterm delivery, said Dr. Smith and her colleagues.

The collaborative research group that collected data for the study receives research funding from several pharmaceutical companies. None of the authors reported any personal conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith CF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23730.

Women with RA and juvenile idiopathic arthritis have increased risk for preterm delivery, according to a study examining autoimmune disease in pregnancy. Corticosteroid use in any trimester increased that risk from 100%-400%, regardless of how active the arthritis was.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

The study found that women with RA had more than double the risk for preterm delivery, compared with a cohort without autoimmune disease (relative risk, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.91). For women with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the relative risk was 1.81 for preterm delivery (95% CI, 1.14-2.89).

The prospective cohort study, part of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Disease in Pregnancy Project, enrolled 657 women with RA and 170 women with JIA. The study also included a comparison group of 564 women without autoimmune disease. All of those included in the study were enrolled before 19 weeks’ gestation and delivered live-born infants during 2004-2017.

The study adds to a clinically important area of research that has yielded sometimes conflicting results; clarity has also been impeded by a variety of methodologies. Though several analyses have shown higher risk of preterm delivery in women with RA, not all studies have adjusted for medication use and disease activity, Chelsey F. Smith, MD, and her coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. Further, how women with JIA fare in pregnancy has not been well studied, they said.

Dr. Smith, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues included many baseline covariates in their analysis of pregnancy outcomes; these included maternal age and race, socioeconomic status, body mass index, previous adverse pregnancy outcomes, and comorbidities, including autoimmune disease. Adverse pregnancy outcomes during the studied pregnancy were also included as covariates, and deliveries were considered preterm if labor began before 37 weeks’ gestation.

For women with RA, a higher active disease score at any point during pregnancy was associated with a significantly higher risk of preterm delivery, even after adjustment for other potential risk factors, including first-trimester corticosteroid use (adjusted risk ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.18). The persistence of this association, wrote Dr. Smith and her colleagues, implies “that active disease in RA may contribute to [preterm delivery] independent of medications,” perhaps through the action of proinflammatory cytokines that may stimulate prostaglandins and provoke uterine contractions.

The researchers found, though, that this association between disease activity and risk for preterm birth did not hold true for women with JIA, leaving part of the mystery unsolved.

However, women with both RA and JIA who used corticosteroids in any trimester were more likely to have a preterm delivery, as were women with JIA who used NSAIDs in the first trimester of pregnancy. The use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in any trimester did not confer increased risk for preterm delivery in women with either disease state.

There were other differences between the groups: Women with JIA were overall younger, but had more prepregnancy hypertension, which “may have contributed to the elevated incidence of preeclampsia seen in this group,” the investigators wrote. Fever was more common in women with JIA, and had an independent association with preterm delivery, as did first trimester NSAID use in this group alone.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues hypothesized that the relative heterogeneity of the JIA group may mean that disease activity still influenced outcomes.

Among other comorbidities, gestational diabetes (GDM) was more common in the RA group than in the JIA group or the comparison cohort, and was associated with a significantly higher risk for preterm delivery in women with RA, even after accounting for preeclampsia and hypertension in a multivariate analysis.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues pointed out that it was difficult to account for physician behavior in managing pregnancy in these high-risk women. “Additionally, given that women with both RA and GDM are at a particularly high risk for perinatal complications, we can speculate that the obstetricians in this group were perhaps more aggressive about inducing at an earlier gestational age than in other groups, but this information was not available in the dataset.”

Through phone interviews, investigators obtained information about prescription and nonprescription medication use during pregnancy; women were also asked about use of other substances and occupational exposures, infections, and prenatal testing and other medical procedures. Another telephone interview conducted soon after delivery asked about birth outcomes. Abstracted medical record data were used to verify and supplement the interview information.

When looking at treatments used, Dr. Smith and her colleagues grouped autoimmune disease medications into DMARDs, non-DMARD biologic medications, corticosteroids, and NSAIDs.

Disease activity assessment, conducted at intake and at 32 weeks’ gestation, used the Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain scores, and patient global disease activity to calculate a Patient Activity Scale score ranging from 0 to 10. Patients with a score over 3.7 were classified as having high disease activity.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues said that the study’s strengths included its prospective design and robust statistical schema. Also, using data about corticosteroid use and disease activity earlier in pregnancy avoided the inclusion of a reverse causation effect, where systemic inflammatory changes associated with preterm delivery might provoke more disease activity and a consequent boost in corticosteroid use.

However, the researchers said, the overall numbers of participants with preterm delivery was relatively small, and the JIA cohort was small as well.

“Further analyses are necessary to look at other categories of arthritis affecting women of childbearing age, racial disparities in these populations, as well as the influence of disease activity in the later stages of pregnancy on other perinatal factors” that can contribute to preterm delivery, said Dr. Smith and her colleagues.

The collaborative research group that collected data for the study receives research funding from several pharmaceutical companies. None of the authors reported any personal conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith CF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23730.

Women with RA and juvenile idiopathic arthritis have increased risk for preterm delivery, according to a study examining autoimmune disease in pregnancy. Corticosteroid use in any trimester increased that risk from 100%-400%, regardless of how active the arthritis was.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

The study found that women with RA had more than double the risk for preterm delivery, compared with a cohort without autoimmune disease (relative risk, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.91). For women with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the relative risk was 1.81 for preterm delivery (95% CI, 1.14-2.89).

The prospective cohort study, part of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Autoimmune Disease in Pregnancy Project, enrolled 657 women with RA and 170 women with JIA. The study also included a comparison group of 564 women without autoimmune disease. All of those included in the study were enrolled before 19 weeks’ gestation and delivered live-born infants during 2004-2017.

The study adds to a clinically important area of research that has yielded sometimes conflicting results; clarity has also been impeded by a variety of methodologies. Though several analyses have shown higher risk of preterm delivery in women with RA, not all studies have adjusted for medication use and disease activity, Chelsey F. Smith, MD, and her coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. Further, how women with JIA fare in pregnancy has not been well studied, they said.

Dr. Smith, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues included many baseline covariates in their analysis of pregnancy outcomes; these included maternal age and race, socioeconomic status, body mass index, previous adverse pregnancy outcomes, and comorbidities, including autoimmune disease. Adverse pregnancy outcomes during the studied pregnancy were also included as covariates, and deliveries were considered preterm if labor began before 37 weeks’ gestation.

For women with RA, a higher active disease score at any point during pregnancy was associated with a significantly higher risk of preterm delivery, even after adjustment for other potential risk factors, including first-trimester corticosteroid use (adjusted risk ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.18). The persistence of this association, wrote Dr. Smith and her colleagues, implies “that active disease in RA may contribute to [preterm delivery] independent of medications,” perhaps through the action of proinflammatory cytokines that may stimulate prostaglandins and provoke uterine contractions.

The researchers found, though, that this association between disease activity and risk for preterm birth did not hold true for women with JIA, leaving part of the mystery unsolved.

However, women with both RA and JIA who used corticosteroids in any trimester were more likely to have a preterm delivery, as were women with JIA who used NSAIDs in the first trimester of pregnancy. The use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in any trimester did not confer increased risk for preterm delivery in women with either disease state.

There were other differences between the groups: Women with JIA were overall younger, but had more prepregnancy hypertension, which “may have contributed to the elevated incidence of preeclampsia seen in this group,” the investigators wrote. Fever was more common in women with JIA, and had an independent association with preterm delivery, as did first trimester NSAID use in this group alone.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues hypothesized that the relative heterogeneity of the JIA group may mean that disease activity still influenced outcomes.

Among other comorbidities, gestational diabetes (GDM) was more common in the RA group than in the JIA group or the comparison cohort, and was associated with a significantly higher risk for preterm delivery in women with RA, even after accounting for preeclampsia and hypertension in a multivariate analysis.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues pointed out that it was difficult to account for physician behavior in managing pregnancy in these high-risk women. “Additionally, given that women with both RA and GDM are at a particularly high risk for perinatal complications, we can speculate that the obstetricians in this group were perhaps more aggressive about inducing at an earlier gestational age than in other groups, but this information was not available in the dataset.”

Through phone interviews, investigators obtained information about prescription and nonprescription medication use during pregnancy; women were also asked about use of other substances and occupational exposures, infections, and prenatal testing and other medical procedures. Another telephone interview conducted soon after delivery asked about birth outcomes. Abstracted medical record data were used to verify and supplement the interview information.

When looking at treatments used, Dr. Smith and her colleagues grouped autoimmune disease medications into DMARDs, non-DMARD biologic medications, corticosteroids, and NSAIDs.

Disease activity assessment, conducted at intake and at 32 weeks’ gestation, used the Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain scores, and patient global disease activity to calculate a Patient Activity Scale score ranging from 0 to 10. Patients with a score over 3.7 were classified as having high disease activity.

Dr. Smith and her colleagues said that the study’s strengths included its prospective design and robust statistical schema. Also, using data about corticosteroid use and disease activity earlier in pregnancy avoided the inclusion of a reverse causation effect, where systemic inflammatory changes associated with preterm delivery might provoke more disease activity and a consequent boost in corticosteroid use.

However, the researchers said, the overall numbers of participants with preterm delivery was relatively small, and the JIA cohort was small as well.

“Further analyses are necessary to look at other categories of arthritis affecting women of childbearing age, racial disparities in these populations, as well as the influence of disease activity in the later stages of pregnancy on other perinatal factors” that can contribute to preterm delivery, said Dr. Smith and her colleagues.

The collaborative research group that collected data for the study receives research funding from several pharmaceutical companies. None of the authors reported any personal conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith CF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.23730.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women avoid using marijuana while pregnant and breastfeeding, as the long-term effects of prenatal and childhood exposure to marijuana are not known but potentially harmful to mother and child, according to a recent clinical report published in the journal Pediatrics.

“The fact that marijuana is legal in many states may give the impression the drug is harmless during pregnancy, especially with stories swirling on social media about using it for nausea with morning sickness,” Sheryl A. Ryan, MD, FAAP, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Substance Use and Prevention, stated in a press release. “But in fact, this is still a big question. We do not have good safety data on prenatal exposure to marijuana. Based on the limited data that do exist, as pediatricians, we believe there is cause to be concerned about how the drug will impact the long-term development of children.”

The rate of marijuana use is increasing among pregnant women 18 years to 44 years old is increasing, the committee said, with 3.84% of women in 2014 within that age range using marijuana within the past month compared with 2.37% in 2002. Among women who were between 18 years and 25 years old, the rate of marijuana use within the past month was 7.47% in 2014.

oksun70/ThinkStock

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women avoid using marijuana while pregnant and breastfeeding, as the long-term effects of prenatal and childhood exposure to marijuana are not known but potentially harmful to mother and child, according to a recent clinical report published in the journal Pediatrics.

“The fact that marijuana is legal in many states may give the impression the drug is harmless during pregnancy, especially with stories swirling on social media about using it for nausea with morning sickness,” Sheryl A. Ryan, MD, FAAP, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Substance Use and Prevention, stated in a press release. “But in fact, this is still a big question. We do not have good safety data on prenatal exposure to marijuana. Based on the limited data that do exist, as pediatricians, we believe there is cause to be concerned about how the drug will impact the long-term development of children.”

The rate of marijuana use is increasing among pregnant women 18 years to 44 years old is increasing, the committee said, with 3.84% of women in 2014 within that age range using marijuana within the past month compared with 2.37% in 2002. Among women who were between 18 years and 25 years old, the rate of marijuana use within the past month was 7.47% in 2014.

oksun70/ThinkStock

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women avoid using marijuana while pregnant and breastfeeding, as the long-term effects of prenatal and childhood exposure to marijuana are not known but potentially harmful to mother and child, according to a recent clinical report published in the journal Pediatrics.

“The fact that marijuana is legal in many states may give the impression the drug is harmless during pregnancy, especially with stories swirling on social media about using it for nausea with morning sickness,” Sheryl A. Ryan, MD, FAAP, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Substance Use and Prevention, stated in a press release. “But in fact, this is still a big question. We do not have good safety data on prenatal exposure to marijuana. Based on the limited data that do exist, as pediatricians, we believe there is cause to be concerned about how the drug will impact the long-term development of children.”

The rate of marijuana use is increasing among pregnant women 18 years to 44 years old is increasing, the committee said, with 3.84% of women in 2014 within that age range using marijuana within the past month compared with 2.37% in 2002. Among women who were between 18 years and 25 years old, the rate of marijuana use within the past month was 7.47% in 2014.

oksun70/ThinkStock